Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Asylum Seekers

Peter Duncan: How many asylum applications have been processed since 1 January.

Beverley Hughes: In the first quarter of 2003, we received a total of 16,000 asylum applications—a third fewer than in the previous quarter. During the same period, nearly 20,800 initial decisions were made on asylum applications, which is 6 per cent. more than in the previous quarter, and 24,600 appeals were decided—24 per cent. more than in the last quarter of 2002.

Peter Duncan: I thank the Minister for that reply. She will be aware that asylum applications made at Stranraer and Cairnryan in my constituency have spiralled tenfold in the last two years, yet there are still no permanent Home Office staff in place, in port, to deal with those applications from vulnerable asylum seekers who need help. Will she commit herself to looking once more at the opportunity provided by the combination of Stena Line and P&O in one port facility to put in place the infrastructure so that these asylum seekers are dealt with quickly and timeously and their applications progressed much more quickly than at present?

Beverley Hughes: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I can tell him that it would not be an effective use of resources to have a permanent, fixed immigration post in small ports such as that to which he refers, which deal only with a common travel area. What is more effective is what we are doing: working jointly with the local police service and the Association of Chief Police Officers to have an intelligence-led approach.
	The hon. Gentleman said that asylum applications have spiralled. Since January to March this year, four asylum applications have come through that port, which is a result of the measures that the Government have taken more generally to reduce asylum applications, not only in-country but at designated ports of entry throughout the UK.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will my hon. Friend help me? I am truly bewildered about why the thousands of applicants for refugee or asylum status still awaiting a determination—after years not months—cannot be employed. It is a fact that all those people are working in what is known as the black economy. It would be much better if they were given conditional opportunities to work and pay tax rather than being a burden on the state and/or being under enormous financial pressure with their families. Why cannot they work while they are here?

Beverley Hughes: As I think my hon. Friend knows, those people who made a claim before July last year, when we changed the rules on employment, can work. It is those who have claimed since July 2002 who cannot work unless their claim takes longer than six months. That is because it is clear, in terms of the number of unfounded applications that we have been getting, that many people are coming here and claiming asylum when what they really want to do is work. That is a significant pull factor. That is why we have taken away the right to work for new applicants.

Mr. Speaker: Simon Hughes.

Simon Hughes: I had not asked to come in on this question.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had Mr. Hughes down on the list. Perhaps I will get him some other time.

David Cameron: It is not often that we see a tongue-tied Liberal. Is the Minister still committed to the Prime Minister's pledge to look at our international obligations under the treaties that we have signed on asylum or is she committed to more qualified majority voting on asylum and immigration matters? Surely she cannot have both.

Beverley Hughes: We have been round this course several times previously with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. What we have said on the treaties is clear: if that were to be necessary, we would do it. We do not think that it will be necessary, however, and we have made other proposals, which, on a multilateral basis, with other European countries, we think will be more effective. As for QMV, we have also made it clear that when it is in our interests to support that, we will do so, and asylum and immigration are matters on which it can help us achieve a better common policy across Europe, which is in our interests.

Gwyn Prosser: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Home Affairs Committee visited the port of Dover last month we were hard-pressed to find a single asylum seeker to whom to speak? To what degree have asylum applications fallen in Dover and other Kent ports? To what does she attribute that dramatic reduction? Will she lend a word of praise to hard-working immigration officers on this side of the channel and in Calais who are helping to keep the numbers down?

Beverley Hughes: I will write to my hon. Friend with the exact figures for Dover. As I said earlier, right across the board, in relation to both in-country claims and those at designated ports of entry, comparing the figures for March with last October, we have seen a 50 per cent. reduction in asylum claims. In respect of Dover, he is right that that is in no small measure due to the hard work of immigration officials on both sides of the channel. Indeed, from January to March this year, almost 1,400 people have been stopped from coming to the UK as a result of the detection equipment in Calais. I might say that we are trying to build on those measures by bringing forward powers to enable police and immigration officers to exercise immigration control on French soil. It is astonishing that when that was debated in Committee a fortnight ago, Conservative Members divided the Committee and voted against a practical measure that will succeed in bringing the figures down even more.

Humfrey Malins: While the rapid processing of asylum claims is much to be welcomed, so too would we welcome the speedy removal of people whose applications for asylum have failed. It is estimated that since the Government came to power, some 250,000 failed asylum seekers who should have been removed have, in fact, remained here illegally. Will the Minister confirm that the Government actually intend to remove those failed asylum seekers? Does she believe that they will ever do that and, if so, when?

Beverley Hughes: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Front Bench—it is a pleasure to see him there. As he well knows, while reducing the number of claims is an important priority, removing people who have come to the end of the road is equally important. The number of people we are removing is rising month on month. In March, 1,500 people were removed, which was an all-time high. Our policy of firm contact management—of retaining contact with people throughout the process, requiring them to report weekly and issuing asylum seekers with cards on which their fingerprints are marked—is part of our strategy to ensure that we remove more and more people. As he well knows, our figures are already much higher than those achieved by the Conservative Government in 1996, when 5,000 people were removed.

Jim Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that although speedy decision making for fresh asylum seekers is welcome, many people have been in the country for several years on whom no decision, let alone an initial decision, has yet been taken? What steps will she take to speed up those people's applications?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. He will know that there was an all-time high backlog of 120,000 applications several years ago. That figure has been reduced to 35,000, which is not much higher than the figure for work in progress, but it needs to be reduced further. Of course, as we reduce the number of claims every month, we are investing more resources to remove the backlog. I expect that the backlog will be no more than a reasonable number of cases representing work in progress by the end of the year.

Prisoner Repatriation Agreements

Andrew Turner: If he will list the bilateral agreements the UK has for repatriation of prisoners before their full sentence has been served.

Caroline Flint: The United Kingdom has bilateral prisoner transfer agreements with eight countries and territories. A further six agreements have been reached but are not yet in force. In addition to these bilateral agreements, the United Kingdom is a signatory to two multi-party agreements covering 77 other countries and territories.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that 10 per cent. of the prison population are foreign citizens and that a quarter of those—something like 1,700 people—are from Jamaica alone? Would it not be sensible to pay the Jamaican Government to look after those prisoners where they could be near their families, or even for us to set up a prison in Jamaica for them?

Caroline Flint: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes great interest in the matter, and that he secured an Adjournment debate on 1 July on it and other issues relating to the prison population on the Isle of Wight. The Government are keen to conclude as many prison transfer agreements as possible and 10 such agreements have been signed in the past 18 months. I am sure that he is aware that we have constantly asked the Jamaican authorities to enter into repatriation agreements but that they have decided against concluding such agreements with us and other countries. We are mindful of the situation and we keep all aspects of it under review and discussion, but Jamaica does not have the capacity to receive prisoners back at the moment.

Simon Hughes: Is there a bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States for the repatriation of British prisoners sentenced in the United States? If any current British prisoners under US jurisdiction were to be sentenced, would either current extradition arrangements or the new draft extradition treaty allow them to be brought back here at the request of the British Government?

Caroline Flint: There is no formal agreement, but we would not rule out repatriation. We have a good relationship with the United States Government and keep all issues under review. There has been a long-standing partnership between us and the US. We listen mindfully to each side of the argument in relation both to people from the US who have committed offences in this country and to those from this country who have committed offences in America.

Police

Rob Marris: If he will make a statement on the change in the number of police officers since 1997.

David Blunkett: I set a target for increased police numbers of 130,000 by March this year. We had exceeded that target by 1,500 by last September. I had an additional target of 132,500 by March 2004. As of December last year—I am announcing these figures for the first time—we had 132,268 police officers in England and Wales, which is 5,110 more than when we took office in 1997. Hon. Members can see that we are well on the way to massively exceeding the 2004 target. In addition, we have almost 1,500 community support officers, all of whom are available and visible on the beat, reassuring the public that the police are there doing their job.

Rob Marris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The increase in police numbers is having a real effect in the west midlands, but of course there is still much more to do. Will he say more about the efficiencies that the police could manage? He mentions community support officers, who are welcome to release front-line police officers to do front-line work. Will he say something about lessening the amount of paperwork that police officers have to do when they arrest someone, for example? The time that it takes to process such applications removes them from front-line duties. Could other police staff do that work?

David Blunkett: We are encouraging all chief constables to consider how both civilianisation and specialisation can help to free officers to be visible and available. There have been some interesting experiments in the west midlands with the better use of forensic science, which has reduced burglaries by 20 per cent. through the apprehension of repeat offenders. I commend what has been done there. I just wish that other forces could match it.

Hugo Swire: The Home Secretary seeks to reassure us by explaining how many additional policemen and women there now are up and down the country. The reality, as evidenced in the report in The Sunday Times, is that burglaries, robberies and assaults have risen by more than 25 per cent. in rural areas. Is he convinced that he is putting enough resources into rural police forces? Equally, is he not worried that he is squeezing urban crime into rural areas? Does he consider it good politics or good sense to criminalise tens of thousands of people who pursue hunting as a sport when the police are already overstretched?

David Blunkett: I am not entering into the hunting debate. I merely refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of the shadow Home Secretary not much more than a week ago when he advocated, as has his leader, that we divert resources into the high-crime, high-drug areas. I suggest that his Back Benchers have a little chat about how he can do that without pulling those resources out of rural areas. When we decided to keep the specific rural fund and to have a floor below which no one would fall in terms of year-on-year increases, we were mindful of our obligation to serve the nation as a whole, not just a particular sector interest.

James Purnell: The public inquiry into Harold Shipman's murders found today that the police mishandled the investigation into the affair and that, if they had not done so, three of his murders could have been avoided. Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families involved? Will he push Greater Manchester police to act on the inquiry's findings? Will he heed Dame Janet Smith's call for a radical overhaul of the coroners service?

David Blunkett: I join my hon. Friend in sending a message from this House of deep regret and sorrow to the families of those who died at the hands of Shipman. The report produced by Tom Luce, which was published at the beginning of June and on which we are consulting, and Dame Janet's continuing work, including the report published today, will form the basis of radical improvement and change in the coroners service. I also want to pick up the point that was reinforced by the new chief constable of Greater Manchester. We must have not simply a better coroners service but a better process and approach from all those who deal with suspicious cases. Had that been the case at the time of the murders, at least three people would still be alive.

Gregory Barker: It is unacceptable for the Home Secretary to say that he will not enter the hunting debate when he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be seated; his question is not allowed.

Unauthorised Camping

Colin Pickthall: What measures he proposes to assist (a) the police and (b) local authorities in preventing large-scale unauthorised camping.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Government have tabled amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill to extend police powers to take prompt and firm action against unauthorised encampments, irrespective of their size, where space has been provided in local authority areas.

Colin Pickthall: Like many other towns, Skelmersdale is regularly plagued by large numbers of travellers who turn up in as many as 200 caravans at a time to occupy playing fields, factory car parks or any open space that they can find. It costs the local authority vast amounts of money in cleaning up the disgusting mess after they have left and in investing in miles of security fencing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the police have adequate powers but, owing to the scale of the problem, cannot use them properly, and that the guidelines for local authorities have built-in delays that make them inoperable? Does what she has announced cover the fact that there is at last a joint initiative between the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to draw up an effective policy to deal with the issue and to relieve the people of Skelmersdale, including me, from this awful problem?

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on an issue on which he has been active for many years. I read the Adjournment debate that he initiated at about this time of year in 1999 on precisely this problem, so I can see it has been a chronic problem in Skelmersdale. I share his optimism about the capacity of the new guidance and better co-operation between the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We have powers, but it is a question of using them. The guidance that is out for consultation will help local authorities and the police to work better together to deal with the problem of large-scale unauthorised camping that he has highlighted. The final part of that guidance specifically focuses on that issue, which I know is a very serious problem in many areas.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister will be aware that, although the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), was helpful in Committee on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, he said that the Government were prepared to consider further a problem that affects my constituency that is similar to that raised by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). A group of travellers succeeded in purchasing land on a flood plain, on which they improperly dumped thousands of tonnes of hardcore. Owing to delays in the law, it is difficult to do anything about that. The Under-Secretary promised that the Government would look into that variant of this massive problem. Will the Minister undertake to work with other Departments and to meet me to discuss constructive ways of extending the Government's efforts?

Fiona Mactaggart: One member of the ministerial team will certainly be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I share his optimism about the commitments in Committee of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. There are already substantial powers on dumping. In preparation for answering this question, I asked for some information about the number of prosecutions on dumping. It seems that local forces are often not as dynamic as they could be in using powers to prosecute when dumping has occurred.

Tony Clarke: Northamptonshire's geographical position means that it has acute problems at times with illegal encampments. The problem is not so much that there is not enough guidance, but that often the guidance is misinterpreted by local authorities and the police force. At times there is a lack of co-ordination between local authorities and police forces in deciding who should first take action. Will my hon. Friend ensure that when she gives advice to local authorities and the police force, she does not just tell them what can be done or what they could do, but what they should do, and who is responsible for taking the first action?

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful question. His message of better co-operation and collaboration is a key one. It is one reason why the guidance consultation paper is a joint paper involving the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office. We are working together to ensure that that collaboration at national level is reflected at local level. We are seeking to provide guidance that leads to a robust approach—a phrase that is used in the draft guidance—that can be reflected on the ground.

Julie Kirkbride: Does the Minister recognise that one of the principal problems that leads to large-scale encampments not being dealt with is that the police cannot deal with the numbers involved and ensure public safety? That has certainly been the case in Worcestershire. I would be grateful if she commented on that. If the Home Secretary will not recognise that problem, does the hon. Lady at least understand that her Government's determination to go ahead with a Bill to ban fox hunting will only add to the problem of public order and public safety?

Fiona Mactaggart: The efforts of the Conservative party to defend the rights of fox hunters under any guise are becoming almost entertaining. However, the hon. Lady makes a serious point about mass gatherings and the need for intelligence where mass gatherings are planned. I hope that the fox hunting community, which has put a great deal of effort into persuading us all that it is a law-abiding community, does not intend to break the law and organise in a way that means that people are not aware of any gatherings that it might be planning.
	In the joint guidance on which we are consulting, the final section is about the mass gatherings, and especially those that have expensive security and clean-up implications. We are seeking guidance about best practice and examples of best practice from those with direct experience so that we can assist people in dealing with some of the practical difficulties that they face.

Youth Offending

Hugh Bayley: What action the Government are taking to tackle youth offending.

Paul Goggins: We have put in place a broad programme to prevent children from being drawn into crime, with targeted initiatives focusing on those young people most at risk in high-crime areas. We have also made significant improvements to the youth justice system that have assisted in reducing reoffending rates.

Hugh Bayley: Does my hon. Friend recognise the sense of powerlessness that a community can feel when a group of children or young people—sometimes a very small group—run riot and engage in a localised epidemic of vandalism or criminal damage? What help can the Government give those communities so that they can believe that their voice and views will be listened to by law enforcement authorities and the courts? What are the Government doing to encourage local authorities to provide meaningful activities for young people in deprived neighbourhoods over the summer holiday to try to divert them from antisocial behaviour?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is right that many local communities feel overrun and powerless in that way, which is why the Government are taking action in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill and a range of other measures. He is right to argue that communities need to be more involved in the criminal justice system—an issue that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the Edith Kahn lecture. To give my hon. Friend an example of the use of referral orders—the main court disposal for first-time young offenders—young offenders are referred to a local panel, on which sit two local community members, and which determines the programme that they must follow. In York since last April, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there have been 108 referral orders, and there are now 28 community panel members in service.

Oliver Letwin: We are united across the House in our desire to lift young people off the conveyor belt to crime and see what the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) described as worthwhile activities for young people. Presumably, we also all agree that, in our desire to lift some young people off the conveyor belt to crime, we must not create incentives for other young people to get into crime. May I therefore take it that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety was either inaccurately reported or was making an elaborate joke when it was suggested in the weekend papers that she wanted to pay young recidivists up to £20,000 a year to go straight?

Paul Goggins: I read the press reports over the weekend. They were right in one respect—my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety thinks highly of that project. However, we need to clarify some of the detail in those reports. First, people are not employed in that project as an alternative to prison—they are paid to work as mentors for young people, and the starting salary is about £8,000. If they gain all the qualifications, they can earn up to £15,000, but all of them are full-time staff. Some of them are ex-offenders, but they are turning that negative experience into something positive for society. I would have thought that, now that he knows that, the right hon. Gentleman would join me in supporting such an approach.

Oliver Letwin: I am glad to hear that. As we seem to be making progress, will the Minister help us by agreeing also that the probation service ought to play an important part in helping young people off the conveyor belt to crime? If so, what does he make of a letter from the head of service delivery for the probation service in the London boroughs of Merton and Sutton, who writes to the clerk to the justices in a magistrates court:
	"You will be only too aware of the . . . difficulties that the London Probation Area has been experiencing . . . This is not a problem that is confined to Merton and Sutton Boroughs but is . . . occurring throughout the country . . . In order to remedy the situation it has been agreed by the London Probation Area that we will suspend individual supervision on all but very high risk offenders".
	Instead of ruminating about further schemes, should not the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety attend to the crisis in the probation service?

Paul Goggins: I am aware of some of the difficulties currently experienced in London, and I am looking at them closely with senior management in the probation service. However, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there are now 2,000 more probation officers than there were in 1997 and that the overall budget for the probation service is set to double in the current spending period. The Government are therefore putting resources into the probation service, and we intend to make sure that the kind of service that it offers is a credible alternative to custody.

Meg Munn: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the effectiveness of youth offending teams, given that they have now been in place for some time? Is the mix of different professionals, such as education and health professionals, having the desired effect in dealing with young offenders' educational, drug and other problems and reducing the likelihood of their reoffending?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is right. The way that services are coming together at local level is very encouraging, and can provide the right package of support for young people. It can provide the strong support that can deter them from reoffending. To give an example of such programmes, the youth inclusion programme pinpoints young teenagers who are most at risk in the big high-crime areas. There has been a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of arrests in those areas as a result of that programme, so co-ordinated action between all the agencies can make a difference.

Patrick Cormack: If the Government are anxious to cut down the number of young offenders, why are they taking steps to make every member of every pony club in the country a potential young offender?

Paul Goggins: I will look carefully at the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but given the range of my responsibilities, including prisons and probation, and the challenges that we face in those areas, I hope he will forgive me if I pass on that one.

Ross Cranston: I congratulate the Front-Bench team on measures such as the Youth Justice Board at national level and the youth offending teams at local level, which are having a real impact. Will my hon. Friend comment on what my local police say—that much petty youth offending is alcohol-fuelled? Will he have a conversation with our hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, who I am pleased to say has brought with her from the Department of Health the alcohol strategy that she was developing?

Paul Goggins: My hon. and learned Friend is right. Alcohol is far too often involved in offending, not least among young people. We need to deal head-on with that problem and provide alternative positive activities for young people that will take them away from crime. Where that happens, we see very good results.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Graham Allen: If he will change the burden of proof for anti-social behaviour orders from criminal to civil.

Hazel Blears: We have no plans to do so. The standard of proof set by the House of Lords, in the case of R v Crown Court at Manchester ex parte McCann and Others, has not proved to affect antisocial behaviour order applications adversely. ASBOs are one tool in the fight against antisocial behaviour. The measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will give further powers to police and local authorities to tackle local disorder.

Graham Allen: In common, I suspect, with most Members, the majority of cases that I dealt with at my surgery at the weekend involved antisocial behaviour. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor on introducing measures to tackle antisocial behaviour that will help the majority of the constituents who came to my surgery on Saturday. But will my hon. Friend the Minister keep antisocial behaviour orders under review at all times? They were a good idea when they first came in, and they have been improved. Can we ensure that we continue to improve them so that they can be more and more workable? I look forward to the debate on Wednesday about making sure that the proof required for an ASBO is not at criminal but at civil level.

Hazel Blears: Indeed, I look forward to discussing the issue at length with my hon. Friend in Westminster Hall later in the week. I can confirm to him that the orders are civil orders, and that the civil standard of evidence is therefore admissible. Antisocial behaviour orders are being granted at an increasing pace. There were 1,112 orders up to March this year, and only 31 have ever been refused. The police and local authorities are increasingly using the powers that the Government have given them to tackle antisocial behaviour and disorderly conduct.

Sydney Chapman: I have had at least two cases of antisocial behaviour recently. In one case, a person driving without insurance or a licence hit another car and gave a number, but the police will not follow up in cases where the person is found not to have insurance because they say they cannot act upon suspicion—they must have third-party evidence. That is causing a great loss of faith in our policing and legal system. Will the Minister look at those cases? They could well be answered by accepting the case advanced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and transferring the burden of proof to civil, rather than criminal, standard.

Hazel Blears: I will gladly look into the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Members of the public have a natural concern when powers are provided but not used in the way they ought to be. People have particular concerns about the breaches of antisocial behaviour orders. We are determined to ensure that where powers are available, they are used to their fullest extent.

Kevin Brennan: With regard to antisocial behaviour, is there not also a responsibility on corporate interests? Is my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was when I attended a meeting last Friday in my constituency to learn that despite lobbying for many years by local councillors, including councillor Gregory Owens, BT has failed to do anything about a problem exchange building that is attracting antisocial behaviour on the part of local youth? Is there anything the Home Office can do to get corporate interests to accept their responsibilities as good neighbours?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. He will know that we have tabled amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill to try to ensure that public utilities take responsibility for the graffiti and fly posting that often affect their buildings and equipment. It is important that businesses are at the heart of the community. They are as much members of the community as anybody else. We want to ensure that businesses not only take their fair share of responsibility, but benefit from the reduction in antisocial behaviour that this Government are determined to achieve. There are rights and responsibilities for business, as for all of us, in this field, and I am delighted that we are working much more with business on a range of such issues.

Domestic Violence

Judy Mallaber: What plans he has for programmes to change the behaviour of domestic violence offenders.

David Blunkett: On 18 June, I published a comprehensive proposal for preventing domestic violence, protecting victims and providing support to those who have been abused and affected. That includes ways of changing attitudes so that those who believe that domestic violence is acceptable get the message very clearly. Two national programmes have been piloted and we have accredited them, and a further programme is under development, as my hon. Friend knows. I should like to commend her for the work that she has done locally and nationally in pursuing this issue.

Judy Mallaber: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Although difficult, it is vital that we address the behaviour of domestic violence offenders, as the evidence suggests that they will almost certainly continue to assault their current and future partners. As part of the programme, will my right hon. Friend ensure that accreditation and therefore funding for Probation Service programmes is rolled out as soon as possible? Will he also consider the experience in respect of other programmes such as PODA—Prevention of Domestic Abuse—in Derby, which works with perpetrators who voluntarily seek help, but is struggling to maintain its funding after initially having three years of lottery funding? Will he consider how such schemes can be extended?

David Blunkett: I shall certainly consider that issue, as the first important step forward is when someone acknowledges that they have a problem and are in need of help. There is a real problem—it applies not only to this area—where pilot funding comes to an end without what might be described as an exit programme to ensure that funding can be picked up and that the programme will not be disadvantaged. These are very important issues. We do not want to proceed with something when we do not know that it works, but when it works we need to ensure that there is long-term funding to sustain it.

John Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a compelling case for seeking to emulate the example of Sunderland city council's housing department, which includes in tenancy agreements a clause that allows for the removal of a convicted domestic violence offender and his placement in a shelter or refuge where he gets therapy and thereby the chance of rehabilitation?

David Blunkett: I am not in full possession of every detail of the Sunderland scheme. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in my statement on 18 June, I made a point of saying that it was important to get the perpetrator out of the house, leaving the family and children with stability wherever that is possible, and as long as we can ensure with restraining orders that they are not terrorised by the individual repeatedly going back to the home.

Vera Baird: May I raise an issue about the standard of proof, which has just been discussed in respect of anti-social behaviour orders, in domestic violence cases? Like ASBOs, such cases involve civil proceedings, but where a domestic violence allegation is raised, its quasi-criminal nature means that the judge adopts the higher criminal standard of proof to such an extent that women are often advised not to pursue such allegations. Is it not very important that the overlap between civil and criminal cases and their respective standards of proof should play a major role in the current domestic violence review?

David Blunkett: I believe my hon. and learned Friend is correct. We indicated that liaison and work between the civil and criminal courts was crucial. We have the experiments in Cardiff, West Yorkshire and London, and we need to extend them, as we were describing this time last week, as part of bringing justice to the community through community justice courts, so that we can ensure that, on a range of issues, including this one, the courts, the magistracy and the judiciary are as close to the people as possible, and that they understand the difficulties and have the power to act.

Community Support Officers

Nick Palmer: What assessment he has made of the impact of community support officers on the incidence of antisocial behaviour.

Hazel Blears: We have received very positive accounts from a variety of sources of the good work that is being done by community support officers in the communities where they are already on patrol. I have not yet made any assessment of their impact on the incidence of antisocial behaviour, but I expect that to be one of the matters that will be covered in the formal evaluations that are due this September from the 27 forces funded last year.

Nick Palmer: I look forward to pressing my hon. Friend further in tomorrow's Adjournment debate. Does she agree that one issue that has attracted particularly wide interest is whether the power of detention that some CSOs have has been a significant factor in enabling them to deter antisocial behaviour?

Hazel Blears: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in this field. He has been assiduous in ensuring that his community gets maximum benefit from community support officers. Powers of detention are being piloted in six areas; they have proved extremely useful on occasion in allowing CSOs a little breathing space in order to check the names and addresses that have been given to them. I am sure that we will learn interesting lessons from those pilots.

Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that the undoubted success of CSOs does not detract from the need for additional full uniformed officers; and does she accept the Metropolitan police commissioner's calculation that an extra 6,500 full officers will be required safely to beat-police the streets of London?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are putting on to the streets record numbers of police officers, together with community support officers, to provide high-profile visible patrolling that reassures people in our communities. The Home Secretary gave the figures. There are 132,600 police officers: that is a record number, and it is more than 5,000 more than there were when the Government came to power. If the hon. Gentleman talks to senior officers in the Met and to officers on the front line, he will find that they are incredibly grateful for the extra support, resources and backing that the Government have given them in the fight against crime.

Jim Knight: Last week, my local newspaper, the Dorset Echo, reported on its front page the welcome that was given by shopkeepers in Dorchester—which is in the neighbouring West Dorset constituency of the shadow Home Secretary—to community support officers who, thanks to a Home Office grant for rural areas and market towns, are tackling antisocial behaviour in town centres. Could the Minister attach the same priority to coastal towns, where we have particular problems with antisocial behaviour, especially during the summer months?

Hazel Blears: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has found community support officers to be so useful. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet a reporter, Mr. Simon McGee from the Nottingham Evening Post, who has been running a fantastic campaign on antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has also been a tremendous support in that regard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) is right to draw attention to seaside towns. He may know that community support officers have been deployed in such areas—in Rhyl, for example—to ensure that such antisocial behaviour can be controlled.
	I should just like to make it clear that, as I speak, the number of police officers is 132,260.

George Osborne: Could the Minister tell us how many police officers could have been employed for the amount of money that has been spent on community support officers? That is surely the only way in which to judge the effectiveness of the idea.

Hazel Blears: I am a little disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's lack of imagination in this area. As I am sure that he knows, we seek not only to have record numbers of police officers, but a whole range of other people visibly patrolling on our streets. As I understand it, the figure is approximately half the numbers that we could have had. I would challenge the hon. Gentleman to go to any community where community support officers are patrolling in order to see for himself. He should ask those local people, "Are they good value for money?" I can imagine that the answer that he will get is, "Yes, they are good value for money and they are doing an excellent job."

Ian Lucas: If he will grant emergency funding for community support officers in Wrexham.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am not convinced that emergency funding for community support officers would be effective in avoiding a recurrence of the serious breakdown in public order on the Caia Park estate that was experienced in June. I understand that North Wales police have an action plan in place to deal with any future problems on the estate.

Ian Lucas: I am disappointed by that reply. We have heard much about the effectiveness of community support officers on the streets throughout the country. The people of Wrexham are working hard to deal with the causes of the serious civil disturbances of the past month. For the first time, North Wales police have said that they will support the introduction of community support officers. Will the Under-Secretary meet me and the police to discuss that fact so that community support officers and their benefits can be used to address the difficulties that Caia Park estate and Wrexham face?

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for his determined efforts to encourage his local police, especially on the use of community support officers. I recognise that he has persisted in that, and that has been helpful. However, other police forces that had applied in both rounds and been unsuccessful would perceive it as unfair if North Wales police got emergency funding. Basic command unit commander Steve Curtis has made proposals, for example, to consider a policing priority area in Wrexham. That might provide part of the solution.
	The key role of community support officers should be to help prevent the sort of disorder that Wrexham experienced rather than tidying up after it has happened. Having community support officers as eyes and ears on the ground, noting, for example, piles of bricks in places where people could chuck them, is one of the best ways in which to prevent such disorder. That is preferable to their dealing with it when it happens.

Drug-related Offences

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (

Caroline Flint: Effective treatment is the key to reducing drug-related crime. The courts have access to sentencing options, including drug treatment and testing orders, community rehabilitation orders or community punishment and rehabilitation orders, drug abstinence orders and drug abstinence requirements. I am pleased that the Criminal Justice Bill will provide for all community orders for adults to be combined into one generic order that can be tailored to the individual offender's requirements, including participation in drug treatment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I belatedly add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary on her new promotion. I am sure that she is well aware of the Government's drugs strategy, which says that investment in drugs treatment is cost-effective, although perhaps not in the way that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety envisaged. Nevertheless, the strategy claims that every £1 spent saves the criminal justice system an estimated £3. Does she not agree that the Conservative policy of increasing places for hard drugs young offenders from 2,000 to 20,000, so that every young addict can be treated, makes eminent good sense?

Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. However, with all due respect, you have to put your money where your mouth is. It is all very well Conservative Members talking about numbers, but given that they are also considering 20 per cent. cuts in public spending, the figures do not add up.
	The Government spent £438 million on drug treatment in 2002–03. That figure will increase to £503 million in 2003–04. That is real money for genuine need. We believe that our efforts to target the drug problems that cause crime, including non-custodial sentencing through drug treatment orders, is the way forward. Much remains to be done but the Government are taking the matter seriously and are prepared to put the money where it counts.

Tony Banks: Let me say to my good and hon. Friend that the war against drugs is simply not working. Indeed, much evidence shows that it is a total failure. Drugs are more freely and cheaply available throughout our country and the police are swimming against a tide that they cannot turn back. To be honest, the Government must now be radical: they must either go for total legalisation or start chopping people's hands off. Since I would prefer the former, is it not time for the Government to admit their failure in the war against drugs, and, as in any war that one is losing, to change the strategy entirely?

Caroline Flint: I am afraid that I disagree with my hon. Friend's assumption that we are losing the war. From travelling around the country last week, and speaking to the Association of Chief Police Officers conference on drugs, it is clear that we are making huge inroads into breaking up drugs trafficking. That has resulted in the figures for the people caught for such offences. However, it is widely appreciated and welcomed that we must focus on the class A drugs that cause the most harm to the individual and communities, and lead to crime. That position is endorsed by the police and by those involved in the treatment of people suffering from drug addiction. We shall embark on such a course and continue to keep to it; that is how we shall achieve success and results.

Julian Brazier: May I, too, belatedly welcome the hon. Lady to her post, in which she arrived just before I arrived in mine? Does she accept the international surveys that suggest—echoing the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—that we now have the third highest incidence of hard drug users in the EU after Italy and Luxembourg? Does she also accept that the desperate shortage of in-patient treatment facilities for hard drug users is a large part of the cause of that? Does she really think it right that we have roughly the same number of in-patient beds as Sweden, which has one eighth of the population of the United Kingdom?

Caroline Flint: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his Front Bench and thank him for his welcome to me. We now have 3,000 residential places, which is twice as many as five years ago, but it is not enough. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would recognise, however, that residential treatment is not the only answer, and that we also have to provide care for people leaving it. I was in Bristol only a few weeks ago, speaking to people involved in the Bristol drugs project. I spoke to drug users, all of whom had been in residential treatment, and they told me that they had been let down by the aftercare. We have to look at this picture in the round, and ensure that treatment is provided for different needs. I am pleased to say that the provision of services across the board is going up and the waiting times are going down.

Police (North-West)

Jim Dobbin: If he will make a statement on his recent funding for extra police officers in the north-west.

Caroline Flint: In 2003–04, we are providing £36.8 million from the crime fighting fund for 1,367 officers recruited in the north-west between April 2000 and March 2003. Another £591,000 from the CFF will part-fund a further 101 officers for the region. By 30 September 2002, the north-west forces had reached a strength of 18,035 officers, which is 446 more than in 1997.

Jim Dobbin: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. The Rochdale police division which serves my constituents will benefit from about 60 additional officers through that major investment. There is also the new deal for communities in Heywood, which is investing in some high-profile policing as part of its community development. Is my hon. Friend aware that, although crime levels are definitely being reduced across my constituency, they are being reduced even faster in the area that includes the new deal community? Is this not a good example of the police working with their local community, and of the community supporting the police?

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I should like to give credit to him, because I know that he works very hard to maintain good relationships with the police, including the new chief constable, Mike Todd, and Chief Superintendent Ted Hill of the Rochdale division. My hon. Friend is talking about joined-up thinking. Working communities involve the police, but they also involve dealing with housing and benefits and with the quality of our neighbourhoods and streets and, most importantly, the engagement of the local community. I commend my hon. Friend's local police, because I know that they are keen to encourage the autonomy that will enable more input into police strategies from the communities themselves.

Prisons

Nick Gibb: What measures he has taken to expand the capacity of existing prisons to meet the forecast average population of the prison estate for 2004.

Paul Goggins: We are modernising and increasing the capacity of the prison estate. Four hundred additional places will be opened at Birmingham later this year, and funding has been secured for a further 2,820 prison places to be built at existing prisons. Two new prisons will be opened at Ashford and Peterborough, and the total usable capacity of the Prison Service estate will be about 78,700 by 2006.

Nick Gibb: I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am delighted to see him at the Dispatch Box, but, according to Home Office figures, the prison population forecast for 2006 is 91,200, while the prison capacity will be just 77,500. That includes the new prisons to which the Minister has just referred. Does that not mean that the Government are accepting the Lord Woolf approach to sentencing? Does he accept that a policy of shorter sentences has failed over the last 30 years, and that, if it is retained, it will continue to do so?

Paul Goggins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, but I must point out that a forecast is a forecast. As of today, the number that we have in prison is 1,000 below the forecast that has been worked up. We clearly have to take action to ensure that we have more custody available to us—4,500 extra places will be available by 2006—but we also have to ensure that credible community alternatives are also available. The Government are ensuring that that balanced approach is followed through.

Constitutional Reform

Christopher Leslie: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat a statement made today in another place by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, which is as follows.
	We all recognise the importance of our judiciary and our legal system to security and confidence for our communities. They deal with crime, antisocial behaviour, family and civil disputes and, through the tribunal system, a whole range of subjects that affect daily lives.
	We currently have judges of complete independence, probity and very high ability. They are admired all over the world. We need to build on that to ensure that our judges and our legal system are able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. They must continue to be independent—of the Executive and the legislature. They must be able to connect with and reflect our society, and they must be able to be of the highest quality. We must recognise that improvements should occur when confidence is high.
	Currently, we have a system whereby all the judiciary—I include in that magistrates and tribunal members—are appointed mainly by, or on the recommendation of, one Cabinet Minister, whereby until 12 June that Cabinet Minister also sat as a judge in the highest court in the land, and whereby before someone becomes a judge in our highest court of appeal, they are first made a Member of the legislature—namely, the House of Lords.
	The efforts of former Lord Chancellors, in particular Lord Irvine, have ensured that quality and probity have been maintained, but now we need arrangements that embed existing independence in a way that does not depend on one Minister and which ensures that we have not just a quality judiciary and not just an independent judiciary, but a diverse judiciary that reflects our community.
	There has never been a woman appointed to sit in our final court of appeal. There has never been a black or minority ethnic judge appointed to the High Court in England and Wales. We must implement change in a way that carries the confidence of the community, including the legal and judicial community. That means we must consult widely and fully before deciding the full detail of our changes.
	Today, the Government are publishing three consultation papers: the first on a supreme court for the UK, the second on an independent judicial appointments commission for England and Wales, and the third on the future of the rank of Queen's counsel. I will deal first with the proposal on a new Supreme Court.
	We propose that the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords will cease to exist as the United Kingdom's highest court of appeal, and that the present Lords of Appeal in Ordinary instead form a new separate supreme court. While they are members of that court, they will not sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Government propose to transfer the whole of the present jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee to the new supreme court. The time has come to take the final court of appeal out of the legislature.
	The Government also propose, subject to consultation, to transfer from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the new court its present jurisdiction over devolution issues. That will enable us to restore a single apex to the United Kingdom's judicial systems. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will, however, remain in being to continue its work as the final court of appeal for a number of Commonwealth and Crown dependency jurisdictions.
	The supreme court will be a new United Kingdom court. It will stand in exactly the same relationship to the courts in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords does now. The independence of those three judicial jurisdictions will be totally respected. Arrangements will be made, as now, to secure appropriate representation for Scottish and Northern Irish judges.
	The Government also propose to establish an independent judicial appointments commission for England and Wales to recommend candidates for appointment as judges. At present, judges are effectively selected by the Lord Chancellor. It is unsustainable for a Minister to continue to select judges in this way. The process of selection of judges for appointment in England and Wales must be demonstrably impartial and independent, as it now is in Scotland and will be in Northern Ireland.
	Appointments will continue to be made solely on merit but, in addition, a judicial appointments commission will insulate more the appointment of judges from politicians and assist in opening up appointments to some groups of lawyers that are under-represented in the judiciary at the moment, including women, ethnic minorities and, at the higher levels, non-barristers.
	The Government propose, subject to consultation, that the new independent judicial appointments commission would make recommendations to the Secretary of State. That model would significantly curtail ministerial involvement by placing the process of selecting candidates in the hands of the commission. The Secretary of State, however, would remain ultimately accountable to Parliament for the actual appointment. The model would therefore preserve the constitutional convention that the Queen acts on the advice of her Ministers.
	The Government propose a balance of judicial representatives, legally qualified members and lay members for the commission. We seek views on who should chair it. It is proposed that the members be appointed by a separate appointing body. It would not include Ministers, but would be chaired by a senior civil servant, supported by a senior judge and a senior public figure entirely independent of the judiciary and the Executive. Appointments to the commission would be made under Nolan principles, which would further ensure its independence from Ministers. After the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will remain responsible for ensuring the independence of the judiciary in England and Wales within the Cabinet, and consideration should be given to whether that responsibility should be embedded in legislation.
	The third of the papers published today is the Government's consultation on the future of the rank of Queen's counsel, which currently designates members of the Bar and a small number of solicitors "senior advocates". The critical issue on QCs is whether the public are best served by the continuation of that rank. If they are, how should the system be changed?
	Last year, the Government's wider consultation about the market for legal services aimed to find out how silk, as it is known, was actually used, and whether users were concerned about market distortions. The results, published in May, show that there is indeed some general support for silk, but that there are many concerns about how effective it is as a guide to quality in advocacy. That is why the Government are now publishing a wide-ranging paper that canvasses all the options, from improving the current silk system to abolishing it completely and leaving it to the legal profession to establish how customers are best informed about the quality of services.
	Judicial appointments in England and Wales, a Supreme Court and the future of QCs are three vital issues that require detailed consideration. We are determined to ensure, in reaching our conclusions, that we enhance the transparency of our legal system, increase public confidence and bolster the independence of the judiciary from both the Executive and the legislature. In that way we can create a modern legal system that builds on its current independence and quality, ensuring the existence of a better justice system to serve the public.
	I commend the papers to the House.

William Cash: The new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is quoted today as saying that he wants to end the Gilbert and Sullivan profusion of roles for the Lord Chancellor. Given the importance of matters that affect the very essence of our system of justice and the future of our constitution, it is to say the least a pity that the proposals of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State began with a theatrical production that put "Iolanthe" to shame, let alone the ministry of silly walks.
	My first question to the Minister is this: why are we not being given a White Paper, and a debate on that White Paper in the House? Secondly, where are the transfer of functions orders? Without those, what is the statutory basis for the Minister's role in the House of Commons, especially as the new Department is the fourth largest spending Department? The lack of any such order raises serious issues of accountability for public expenditure in the House.
	On 19 June, the Prime Minister told me that the matter would be dealt with once the position of Lord Chancellor had been abolished. As that can be done only by statute, which may be a year away if it comes into being at all, how will the Government deal with the question of financial accountability to the House in the meantime? The Prime Minister is behaving more and more like a Stuart monarch. He should recall the fate of those monarchs.
	Thirdly, the Minister says that we have judges of complete independence, probity and very high ability. He says that that must continue. Will he explain how the current system has failed, and why he thinks that the diversity to which he refers could not have been achieved under the present system? Is diversity another word for political correctness? Bias is not exclusively political, but may result from the whim of fashion or alleged rights. It is of course important for us to have a judiciary drawn from the whole community, but is the Minister saying that diversity is more important than merit?
	Fourthly, on the supreme court, who will be responsible for the rules of procedure, including the white book, under the proposed system? The Secretary of State is understood to have said that the new supreme court would not have the power to strike down legislation, but does that mean that the power of the Secretary of State to issue prohibition orders on the Scottish Parliament, in relation to reserved matters, will be repealed, and who will deal with excessive use of powers in devolution matters? How will Scottish appeals be dealt with in the light of the Act of Union 1707?
	What is the Secretary of State's reason for excluding members of the supreme court from sitting and voting in the other place? That may have certain attractions, but the idea is not welcomed by many. What will be the relationship between the supreme court and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg as the Supreme Court in Europe? Will the Minister clarify the role of the Law Lords? Will they attend the other place after retirement? Will the supreme court inhabit Somerset house? I hear that the dome is still available—no doubt the Secretary of State will be able to find his way there. In such circumstances, the court will be neither supreme nor a final court of appeal.
	Fifthly, on the independent judicial appointments commission, the Minister has already said that we have judges of complete independence, probity and high ability, but he states that it is unsustainable for the Lord Chancellor to continue to select judges. What evidence can he produce to show that the appointment of judges has gone wrong? If the Secretary of State is to remain accountable to Parliament for the actual appointments, as he has stated, how can he not realise that that is bound to involve political interference, especially as, in The Times today, he made clear his determination to use his role for political purposes?
	The Secretary of State owes it to the House to explain how the new commission will be able to guarantee appointments on merit and be fully independent of the Secretary of State. The Government cannot have it both ways; this is no separation of powers, as the Secretary of State has claimed.
	Will it be guaranteed that those appointing the commission will be statutorily prohibited from holding discussions with Ministers or their civil servants? Does the Minister agree that the principle that judges should not be politically appointed should be balanced by the principle that they should not be politically engaged, and that, if they have become so, it is because Parliament has enacted legislation that has encouraged judges not only to interpret the law, but to seek to make it?
	One of the criticisms of the role of the Lord Chancellor was that he was dependent on the patronage of the Prime Minister. Can the Minister explain how that has changed?
	Can the Minister confirm that there will be no interference with the security of tenure of judges, or of their salaries or pensions, or with the principle established in 1688 that means that they had better behave themselves? How will that be dealt with, if at all, in legislation? Will any discipline of judges be made a matter of public record and will any restrictions be imposed on their making political comments to the media?
	How can the Secretary of State confirm that the Lord Chancellor's role in the Cabinet as the arbiter of respect for the rule of law and as the most authoritative and respected member of the Government in matters of proper procedure, fairness and constitutional law will be continued if, as he has said, his successor need not be a lawyer?
	Should not the new Secretary of State be answerable directly to the House of Commons? Should not his Department have a fuller Question Time? Will the system of appointments continue the process of advertising posts?
	I hope that the Minister will agree that the constitutional responsibility for judicial independence is at the heart of our constitutional government. It is essential for the protection of civil liberties, to stop the abuse of power by the Executive and to ensure judicial neutrality. Does he agree that the essence of the role is fair, efficient and effective administration of justice for the people of this country, and that that role should not have been caught up in the ludicrous pantomime of the reshuffle?

Christopher Leslie: I realise that the hon. Gentleman needed to make some sort of political point, but after that contribution I cannot tell whether he is in favour of an independent judicial appointments commission and a new supreme court or against them. Nevertheless, I shall try my best to answer some of his questions.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Green Papers and White Papers. We have set out in the consultation documents, which are significant, a number of important questions. We seek many views on some of these big constitutional issues. Many views have already been expressed historically. We know, for example, the views of the senior Law Lord and the Bar Council about creating a new supreme court and so on. Indeed, by 7 November—the closing date for consultation—we hope that we will have a full range of representations from which to make some of these crucial decisions.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asked again about the transfer of functions order, about which he is particularly concerned. I understand that that matter will go before the Privy Council in July and that it will come before Parliament in the normal way. We anticipate that there will be good notice for some of those matters, and I will certainly discuss that with him in more detail.
	We need to improve judicial appointments and the role of the final court of appeal while confidence in the system is high, not to wait for the system to decay. I believe that that is the right approach. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's implicit suggestion that merit is somehow incompatible with diversity. By creating a judicial appointments commission that is broader in its scope and has a wider membership, rather than just relying on one Cabinet Minister to make the appointments, we can have the chance of a truly more diverse judiciary, which would be a major advance.
	No changes are proposed to the devolution settlement, save for the impact on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which currently hears appeals in devolution cases. Now that the supreme court is being taken out of the House of Lords under these proposals, the supreme court would not effectively have a bias or there would be no perception of a conflict of interests because it would not be in Parliament any more, so that would be the only significant impact on devolution in that respect.
	We believe that it is important to separate the political and the judicial. That is one of the reasons why the consultation document proposes to take the Law Lords out of the House of Lords, so that they will not sit and vote in the House of Lords. Many people, not just constitutional experts, will be familiar with the rationale behind that move.
	I am sorry to say, on the hon. Gentleman's pet subject, that not very many European matters are affected by these proposals, although I am sure that he will no doubt find some in the documents and come back to me at a later date.
	On discipline and grievances for the judiciary, clearly the current arrangements for Parliament to express its view on the judiciary in some very extreme circumstances will not be changed. One of the questions in the consultation paper is whether or not the independent judicial appointments commission should have a role in grievance and discipline procedures.
	I believe that the question of who appoints the appointers has been thoroughly aired in the consultation paper, and I hope that hon. Members will consider that. There are a number of options, but we believe that, by ensuring that there is a judicial input and the independence of a senior public figure, as well as the chairmanship of a senior civil servant, we will find a way to create a judicial appointments commission that is fair and balanced. Indeed, we have clearly set out that we would like a legal voice, a non-legal voice and a judicial voice on that commission.
	The paper contains a number of questions about the role of the Prime Minister in advising the Crown, and answers are sought from those who submit representations during the consultation. I cannot say that I have a view on whether the Department for Constitutional Affairs should have more time at oral parliamentary questions, as that is a matter for the House and its authorities, and I will do whatever I need to do.
	I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, fundamentally, the significant issues that we have set out in the consultation paper are about the transparency and credibility of our judicial system—a judicial system that is important for all people in society, because there are a number of ways in which the law and how it is interpreted affect ordinary people. I believe that this is a major change and a major constitutional advance, and I hope that the House will recognise that.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for early sight of his proposals and even more grateful to the editors of The Times and The Guardian for even earlier sight of the proposals this morning. The Liberal Democrats largely welcome what the Minister is proposing, not least because they are policies that we have been advocating for some time, even when his predecessors were roundly defending the position of the Lord Chancellor.
	On the supreme court, can the Minister confirm that there was little or no consultation with the senior judiciary before this policy was announced and that that omission now needs to be corrected to ensure the proper support of the senior judiciary? Can he tell me whether he intends to have discussions with the representatives of those Commonwealth and other territories that rely on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for their senior court of appeal? It would seem anomalous to retain that as an extension for ever in the absence of the role of the judges in another place. Can the Minister answer the question put by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) about the premises for the supreme court? Does he have any views on where those should be? Does he expect an enhanced role for the Lord Chief Justice in the new judicial arrangements?
	On judicial appointments, does the Minister agree that the test of the proposals is whether, at the end of the day, the appointments procedure is seen to be properly independent of political interference, seen to maintain the high quality of the judiciary and seen to achieve the diversity of appointment that we all want? Does he also agree that senior advocates are not necessarily and exclusively the only source of good judicial appointments? Will he look at the proposal that the commission should bring forward a shortlist from which the Secretary of State will still select? I think that that undermines the proposals, and he should look carefully at whether an alternative exists.
	Lastly, on the funding of the transitional arrangements, the Minister will know that the resources available to the courts in all divisions, including the lower courts, are extremely stretched at the moment. Will additional funding be made available for the transitional arrangements so that the new supreme court and other arrangements are not set up at the expense of local justice, at the expense of the accessibility of justice, and at the expense of the maintenance of the fabric of the judicial system as it is at present?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, tried to claim this as a Liberal Democrat idea. I am sure that in some dark recesses of Liberal Democrat manifestoes, they might have alluded to the judiciary at some level or other, which might justify the claim. Nevertheless, he asked a number of specific questions.
	First, on consultation with the senior judiciary, clearly, decisions have been made that in principle we want to have a supreme court separate from the legislative branch of government. I believe that the consultation papers will provide the opportunity not only for Members of Parliament but the wider public and the judiciary to express fully their views on some of the fundamental questions that need addressing.
	On the question of Commonwealth and dependent territories and whether they will have an input into the changes affecting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, those are decisions for them. If independent countries wish their appeal mechanisms to come to the Privy Council, we will look to continue that. No change is envisaged at this stage in that respect. Clearly, however, they will have their own views on how they want their legal systems to evolve, and we will respect that.
	The hon. Gentleman raised an important question about premises and where a supreme court would be housed. We do not have a fixed view yet, and it would be slightly perverse if we decided that at this early stage, with some of the questions still unanswered in the consultation paper. As the concept of the supreme court takes shape, so we will, as we are doing now, work up our final thoughts on potential premises.
	Issues affecting the Lord Chief Justice in some detailed respects are contained in the consultation papers, and I commend those to the hon. Gentleman. It is important—I agree with him to this extent—that we have a judiciary that is seen to be freer of potential political interference. That is why we are seeking much greater independence in the appointments process. A number of suggested models exist for the independent judicial appointments commission. One is to have a shortlist suggesting a number of names to Ministers. Another is for a shortlist of one, effectively. That is the Government's preferred option at this stage but, again, it is open for consultation.
	Typically, for a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman asked about resources, although it is a fair question. We envisage that costs will be associated with the creation of a Supreme Court, given that it will need to be taken out of the House of Lords. We will make sure that provision is made.

Ross Cranston: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the creation of a supreme court is in no way a reflection on the quality of our highest judiciary, which, as I think he implied, is the envy of the world? During the consultation, will he take account of the cardinal principle that appointments must be made on merit, but that merit is not inconsistent with drawing the highest judges from a wider pool? Consideration could be given to such matters as gender, ethnic background and—I declare an interest here—making appointments from the academic legal community.

Christopher Leslie: I am sure that several opportunities would open up as a judicial appointments commission began its work, but it would not be right for me, as a politician, to express a view on who should be appointed in the first flush of appointments to such a commission. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the highest judiciary and, indeed, all our judiciary is of extremely high quality and international repute. Probity is the watchword of the judiciary's work. It is extremely important to bear in mind the point that I made about making improvements now while confidence is high.

Richard Shepherd: The Minister must surely recognise that this is a new high—or low—in new Labour tosh. The truth is that his statement was based on an unreasoned assertion. I speak as a libertarian, and whatever the faults and demerits of our present system, it has delivered a judiciary that has been able to defend our liberty. No one seriously attacks the processes by which we have reached that. Does the Minister recognise that most of us think that his statement was merely a cover up for a really botched Government reorganisation—the worst in the 19th, 20th or 21st century?

Christopher Leslie: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. If he thinks that a Cabinet Minister should sit as a judge, I respectfully disagree with him. He might think that the final court of appeal should be in the legislature and make judgments on matters of public policy, but potential perceived conflicts of interest arise from that. We must not shy away from addressing such anomalies, as we are doing in the consultation paper.

Frank Doran: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and any attempt to bring the legal profession and, especially, the judiciary into the 20th century. Will he say—[Interruption.] That was deliberate. Will he say a little more about the potential effect in Scotland and, especially, will he tell me what consultation has taken place with the Scottish Executive on the proposal? What safeguards will exist to ensure that an appropriate number of Scottish judges serve in the new court? Will he comment on the view expressed by several voices in Scotland that existing arrangements are embedded in the Act of Union and will require special treatment? What consideration have the Government given to that?

Christopher Leslie: I thank my hon. Friend, especially given his legal background, for his questions about Scotland. It is important that we continue to work closely with the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office and although we have responsibility for the Welsh courts, I am conscious of the interest of the National Assembly for Wales. Scotland and Scottish devolved maters will be affected in several ways. For a start, there will be a change regarding the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We do not envisage any change to the current situation in which no criminal appeals come from Scotland to the House of Lords as the final court of appeal, although issues arise regarding the granting of leave to hear civil cases in the final court of appeal. I urge my hon. Friend to examine the questions about that in the consultation paper and I would welcome his more detailed consideration.

John Wilkinson: Who will appoint the judicial appointments commission and were the changes instituted because of the adverse report made by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the Lord Chancellor's office? Were the suggestions about a Supreme Court made because of the notorious Hoffman case regarding conflict of interest in the Pinochet trial? Were the changes suggested because of personality: were the excesses of the outgoing Lord Chancellor such that it was deemed appropriate to remove not only him but his office?

Christopher Leslie: I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of those views. I know that this will be difficult for the Conservative party to understand, but we are making the change as a matter of principle. It is a major constitutional advance, and I have set out our reasons for the change. On who will appoint the independent judicial appointments commission, the papers suggest some ideas, one of which is to have an independent appointments panel comprising a senior civil servant, senior judge and senior public figure, perhaps independent but available in public life, such as the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That is the right way to deal with who appoints the appointers. Again, I commend those papers to the House.

Jack Cunningham: Is it not obvious that the announcement will be widely welcomed by everyone who is sensible and practical about the long-overdue constitutional reform proposals? Is it not instructive, especially in respect of the supreme court, that ever since 1945, with the reconstruction of Europe and Commonwealth independence, successive British Governments have always insisted on the creation of a supreme court, quite separate from any parliamentary or legislative actions, in the countries that were receiving independence? As it is one issue—the removal of the Law Lords from the House of Lords—raised by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, can my hon. Friend tell us when the Government will respond to the other recommendations in that report?

Christopher Leslie: The Government intend to respond shortly to the second report of the Joint Committee. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's work and stewardship of that body. The creation of an independent judicial appointments commission and the step to have a supreme court taken out of the second House is long overdue. An Act of Parliament was passed as far back as 1873 to do just that, but the Government who followed that Administration decided not to commence it. So here we are ensuring that we take a long-overdue step forward.

Patrick Cormack: As the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will remain responsible for ensuring the independence of the judiciary in England and Wales, and as that gentleman will be appointed by the Prime Minister, are we not witnessing the subjugation rather than the separation of powers?

Christopher Leslie: No. The arrangement was that the Lord Chancellor was appointed by the Prime Minister to be a judge while sitting in Cabinet as a politician. As I said, consideration will be given to whether we should enshrine in the responsibilities of the new post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs a duty to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. That is one question that we have posed and it merits detailed consideration.

Clive Soley: Before this dotty idea that somehow or other it would be politically correct to have women judges escapes from the Tory Front Benches, can we make it crystal clear that confidence in justice is largely brought about by the full involvement of a cross-section of the community in the judicial system? That being so, the fact that we have not had a woman judge is a serious criticism of our system over many years. It is not, however, a criticism of the existing holders of those posts.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is right to say that a woman has never been appointed to sit in our final Court of Appeal; nor has a black or minority ethnic judge been appointed to the High Court in England and Wales. Diversity is important. Our judiciary should reflect the public on whose behalf they seek to implement judicial decisions. Creating an independent judicial appointments commission, with a broad spectrum of people doing the job of selection, will enrich the process so that we have a more diverse judiciary that is appointed on merit.

Annabelle Ewing: Surely the Government's announcement represents consultation after the fact because the decision to establish a UK supreme court was taken last month in Downing street at the time of the botched reshuffle. There was certainly no prior consultation in Scotland. It is not clear from today's proposals whether the necessary criterion of independence from the English legal system will be secured for Scotland. Surely the time is now right in post-devolution Scotland to repatriate the final appellate jurisdiction to the Scottish courts. It surely remains an anomaly that the United Kingdom has any jurisdiction over the matter whatever.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Lady suggests a major change to the arrangements that have worked well for some time under which the House of Lords hears cases as the final Court of Appeal, which we envisage will be conducted through the creation of a UK supreme court. Although there are detailed issues in the consultation paper that affect Scotland, the fundamental separation of the Scottish system will continue and be entirely respected. It is important to keep those separate jurisdictions. It is also important that we have a supreme court that is taken out of the political realm and the second House of Parliament. I hope that the hon. Lady will come round to the view that that is reasonable.

David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend share my view that all reasonable people will welcome the proposals on judicial appointments and the supreme court as a considerable enhancement of the separation of powers under our unwritten constitution? Will he confirm that the consultation process is precisely that announced at the time of the reshuffle, but that some chose not to hear the message on that day?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know that he has been involved in several discussions and documents that have prompted thought on some of the major issues. Circumscribing the role of Ministers and the power that they have, especially in the appointments process, are important changes. That is a major step forward, which I know that my hon. Friends will welcome.

Douglas Hogg: Does the Minister understand that many of us feel that he has got his priorities wrong? Is this not simply change for the sake of change and at additional cost? What will the new supreme court be able to do that cannot as well be done by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and in the House of Lords? If he wants to make a real improvement, why does he not transfer responsibility for constitutional and legal matters from an unelected Secretary of State sitting in a largely nominated House to an elected Secretary of State sitting in this House?

Christopher Leslie: The creation of the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is a major advance. It is difficult to see how a Lord Chancellor could be answerable in the House of Commons. The initiative of a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs should give both Houses an opportunity for further scrutiny and accountability. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that such a matter is a low priority that does not need addressing. If there is a perception of a blurred line between the political and the judicial, surely we all have a duty to address ourselves to it. That is one of the many reasons why we have done so.

Alan Whitehead: May I add my welcome to that of my hon. Friends for these long-overdue reforms, especially the proposal to establish an independent judicial appointments commission? Serving members of that commission might have an opportunity to become members of the judiciary. What arrangements does my hon. Friend intend to make concerning those appointments—either while those people are serving or after their term has ended?

Christopher Leslie: The consultation paper suggests that about 15 people should form the independent judicial appointments commission—roughly equal numbers from the judiciary, legal background and non-legal background. It would clearly be inappropriate for members sitting on a judicial appointments commission to hear their own personal applications. I am sure that arrangements can be made, and I shall certainly bear in mind any issues on the matter.

Jonathan Djanogly: If the Government are determined to pursue these botched proposals that in respect of judicial appointments will destroy a system that works perfectly well, will they now consider going for elected judges rather than another round of appointed cronies?

Christopher Leslie: The Conservative party seems to innovate policy on its feet from moment to moment. If a Conservative Back Bencher wishes to put forward such views, I suppose that that is entirely possible. We do not envisage having elected judges. We feel that the vast majority of important aspects and criteria of the current judicial system should be kept and enhanced. One way of enhancing that system would be to ensure that the appointments process is properly seen to be independent, and to ensure that we insulate it from, perhaps, questions of political interference.

Anne Campbell: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Although I agree that the current system works well, it is shocking that a woman has never been appointed to sit in the final Court of Appeal, nor a black and ethnic minority judge appointed to the High Court. Will my hon. Friend ensure that rather than just leaving these matters to the independent judicial appointments commission, he consults widely with community groups and others concerned about the promotion of equality so that we get a more diverse group of people in our highest courts?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend makes a suggestion that an independent judicial appointments commission could well take forward. It would be a matter for it, in its wider work, to examine new ways of ensuring that applications were brought forward from as wide a range of potential judges as possible. There are issues in the consultation paper that would help to bring forward the extra diversity that my hon. Friend seeks.

Peter Luff: Whatever the merits or otherwise of these proposals, does the Minister understand that as someone who had the privilege of working as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the last Conservative Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I find it particularly difficult to accept that the last Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, has been particularly effective in ensuring the quality and probity of the judiciary? I would draw a very different conclusion from the Minister, and it is this: if even Lord Irvine could ensure the quality and probity of the judiciary, the system ain't broke and don't need fixing.

Christopher Leslie: That is a somewhat circuitous argument from the hon. Gentleman. It seems easy for Conservative Members to take pot-shots at the former Lord Chancellor. Actually, he was responsible for a number of major constitutional advances that I think all hon. Members on cold reflection would recognise and appreciate. We are taking new steps to modernise the constitution, and the House should welcome that.

Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the Minister's statement. I congratulate him and the Secretary of State on these proposals, which have been proposed after the short period that they have had in office.
	First, I heard what my hon. Friend said about elected judges, but if the weight of opinion on consultation favours an election to the commission, will the Government stand in the way of that idea being initiated? Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be a new organisation, and that it will not merely be a case of the judicial appointments part of the old Lord Chancellor's Department moving over to the new judicial appointments commission, otherwise, it would be the same people making the recommendations?

Christopher Leslie: On the last point, it is important that we have officials who assist a new independent judicial appointments commission, who can help to bring out some of the fresher ideas that my hon. Friend seeks. As for elected judges and perhaps an elected judicial appointments commission, these are not issues that have been brought out in the consultation paper precisely because we wish to draw a clearer distinction in our constitutional arrangement between the political and the judicial. I believe that that is the history of our constitution, but taken to a more modern phase. We shall consider all the representations as they are made.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Do not these changes, involving the separation of powers, mean that the judiciary and Parliament will become ever more separate from each other? Was it not a thoroughly good thing, and the reason for the system working over the centuries, that the two were linked through the Lord Chancellor? They were also linked because some of our most senior judges in the land were exposed to the pressing issues of the day by sitting in the House of Lords. Does the Minister agree that these changes are likely to lead to further conflict between the judiciary and Parliament, and will not that ultimately be to the detriment of the British people?

Christopher Leslie: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the models posed in the consultation document is for the independent judicial appointments commission to recommend a shortlist of one or a number of names to a Minister of the Crown so that, while the Minister is taken out of the selection process in sifting applications and so forth, the constitutional convention of having a Minister make recommendations to the Crown and then be accountable to Parliament for such recommendations could be preserved. At this stage, we are in favour of a recommended commission model but, again, we wish to consult on it further.

George Foulkes: I assure my hon. Friend that for the real radicals, the proposals are not only warmly welcome but long overdue, particularly if they result in fewer judges who went to Oxbridge and public school—[Interruption.] I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs Campbell). However, on the supreme court for the United Kingdom, while I encourage my hon. Friend to consult the Scottish Executive and other interests in Scotland, he should take account of the fact that parochialism and self-interest affect some parts of public life in Scotland. In fact, I am beginning to believe that girning is becoming the national sport of Scotland. If there were Olympic medals for girning, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) would be in line for the gold.

Christopher Leslie: My understanding is that the sport of girning requires its participants to have false teeth, and I would not want to suggest that any hon. Member is in that position. I do not believe that the description of parochialism fits the Scottish public at large, but I accept that we must pay particular care and attention to important and delicate issues affecting the devolution settlement, especially as they apply to the United Kingdom supreme court. I shall certainly bear my right hon. Friend's recommendations in mind.

Graham Brady: In September 1998, the Lord Chancellor's Department introduced new guidelines on the appointment of lay magistrates, saying that the Bench must reflect an area's voting pattern as evidenced by the last two general elections. Given that history, how can we have any confidence at all that the Government will not seek to politicise appointments to the judiciary as well?

Christopher Leslie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that issue about the magistracy because, again, the consultation paper looks at the role of the current Lord Chancellor in the appointments process of the magistracy. We envisage retaining local input in the selection process, but in our view that is best done via a judicial appointments commission, independent of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about political balance, which we would not want to upset.

Gordon Prentice: These are excellent proposals and the Government deserve a pat on the back. I hope that Queen's counsel will be done away with. We do not have queen's surveyors or dentists. QCs are an anachronism and ought to be done away with. Let the market decide.

John Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman an advocate of the market?

Gordon Prentice: Absolutely—I am new Labour.
	May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the judicial appointments commission? I take it that it will report annually to Parliament, setting out the criteria that it uses to recommend appointments to the Bench. How long will individuals serve on that commission? I hope that they will not have a lifetime appointment.

Christopher Leslie: The paper includes a recommendation in response to a question about how long members may serve on a judicial appointments commission. There will be mechanisms in place so that such an independent body is accountable through reports to Parliament. On the question of QCs, the Government do not have predetermined answers to the questions that we have set out, but we feel that the rank of QC needs strong justification. If it is to remain, it needs to be of demonstrable benefit to the users of legal services, and such benefit has to outweigh the disadvantages with which the House is familiar.

Peter Duncan: Is the Minister proud of the way in which he has cynically excluded the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament from the proposals, thus reinforcing the view that the Scottish legal system has been relegated to a footnote in the Government's proposals? As conflict resolution is increasingly common in post-devolution UK, can he address the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran)? Exactly how will the Government ensure that there is adequate representation for Scottish judges in the new United Kingdom court?

Christopher Leslie: There are proposals in the document to ensure that we have the right numbers of Scottish and Northern Irish judges in the supreme court and the panels within that. I am surprised to hear those on the Conservative Benches crying for greater consultation with the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament, but I heed the hon. Gentleman's comments. We will continue to work closely with both those institutions as we develop the proposals.

Vera Baird: I congratulate my hon. Friend on these overdue proposals, which will bring the worst aspects of our legal system screaming—believe me, they will scream, and my hon. Friend should not weaken—into the modern world. The suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench that diversity in the judiciary will endanger quality is an insult to those many women and ethnic minority lawyers who work hard now and who do not get promoted. It is not a sign that the system is working perfectly or that it ain't broke when there is not a single woman judge in the highest court in our country, though there are three good ones, but only three, in the Court of Appeal and six good ones, but only six, in the Queen's Bench Division. Does not the dearth of women and ethnic minorities reflect the secret sounding system whereby white male Oxbridge-educated judges inevitably recommend clones of themselves? QCs—may I turn to that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had the impression that I called the hon. and learned Lady to ask a question. Perhaps the Minister could try to answer.

Christopher Leslie: I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend for the forensic way in which she posed her question. She recognised that the proposals were a major advance in our constitutional and judicial system, and that it is right that there should be a stronger separation between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of our constitution. I cannot wait to hear her views on QCs.

John Bercow: Given his professed commitment to increased independence in judicial appointments, why cannot the hon. Gentleman see at best the unwisdom and at worst the absurdity of proposing for the chairmanship of the body that will choose the members of the judicial appointments commission a senior civil servant who, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, is by instinct, training and contract accountable not to the wider world, but to the Executive?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman highlights one proposal in the document relating to the independent judicial appointments commission, and I am grateful for that. These are important issues. I await his detailed and lengthy dissertation on them. I know that he is concerned about who selects those who appoint the judiciary. We share that concern, but we believe that there are arrangements in the paper that will give a measure of extra independence and confidence in the legal system, which all hon. Members seek to achieve.

Points of Order

Jacqui Lait: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you share my concern that we have had yet another Government announcement on policy that was made to the media before it came to the House? I seek your guidance on the proper procedure when that announcement is a reversal—a fundamental U-turn—of a policy statement already made in the Chamber. You will have seen the press reports over the weekend that the Government are planning not to implement the boundary commission recommendations for Scotland before the next general election. During the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 the reduction in the number of Scottish MPs was an olive branch offered to deal with the overrepresentation of Scotland in the Chamber, and also to go some way towards solving the problem of the West Lothian question. Last week in the vote on foundation hospitals, the Government were saved from defeat only—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Angus Robertson: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will wait to see whether there is a point of order. I must warn the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs Lait). She applied for an urgent question today, which I refused. I hope that she is not seeking a way to reopen that matter. If she has a point of order, I want her to get to the point.

Jacqui Lait: It is with pleasure that I shall get to the point. As this is a fundamental U-turn by the Government, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland or any other Minister, including the Under-Secretary, have asked whether they can make a statement to this House on this disgraceful change of policy, which will destabilise the devolution settlement and add to the distrust of this Government by the voters.

Mr. Speaker: I sometimes read the Scottish newspapers, and I say to the hon. Lady that she should not believe everything that goes into a newspaper.

David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few weeks ago at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister misrepresented my views on the European Union by purportedly quoting me. No. 10 provided Hansard with what it said was a direct quote and it was therefore recorded in inverted commas. I raised the matter with you as you are responsible for the accuracy of Hansard, and you said that, in your judgment, it was for the hon. or right hon. Member concerned—in other words, the Prime Minister—to correct the record himself. I therefore tabled a parliamentary question seeking that he confirm publicly what he had confirmed in correspondence—that he had not been able to find the source of the misleading quote—but he has now replied denying the inaccuracy of the quote, refusing to withdraw the remark and also refusing to correct the Official Report.
	This is a serious matter because the Prime Minister is the same as all of us in this House and is responsible for his remarks. He has, on his own admission, misrepresented and misquoted another hon. Member—namely myself. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take action, otherwise, what is there to protect any of us against the No. 10 spin machine, in all its distortions and misleading guile, and its propensity even when caught out, to refuse to correct what it has said or indeed supplied to the Official Report?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order about the answer that he has received from the Prime Minister. I am not, however, responsible for the content of written answers given by Ministers. He has set out his argument clearly and it will no doubt be heard. He will have to seek other means than a point of order if he wishes to take this matter further. The Table Office may be able to advise.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling, but I now have something else that is misleading—a parliamentary answer that conflicts with the private correspondence that I received, which I am reluctant to put on the public record, as it was a private letter to me from the Prime Minister. In correspondence, the Prime Minister himself was unable to give me the source of the quote and therefore conceded that it was misleading and inaccurate. In an official answer to a parliamentary question that is on the record, he now refuses to do that. He refuses to withdraw his remark, to correct what he has acknowledged to be wrong and inaccurate and to amend and correct the Official Report, for which you are responsible. What more can I do when I have a direct contradiction between what the Prime Minister says in private and what he says in public?

Mr. Speaker: I have given the right hon. Gentleman good advice. In this instance, he should go to the Table Office. I would strongly advise that he does that.

George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can we protect the business of this House as set out on the Order Paper by avoiding spurious points of order raised by members of the shadow Cabinet, based on speculation and containing no direct quotation from any Minister? The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) raised such a point of order after having quite properly been refused by you the opportunity to ask an urgent question. That is a disgraceful abuse of the House and she ought to know better.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to worry. Points of order sometimes give the Speaker a form of exercise.

Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In response to a written question, the Prime Minister answered a question that I had not asked. However, that is not my reason for raising this point of order. My question referred to British intelligence and Iraq, and the Prime Minister's reply referred me to the inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee that is taking place. He concludes:
	"Their report on their findings will be published in due course."—[Official Report, 11 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 1059W.]
	Does that mean that if a Back Bencher asks a question that includes the words "intelligence" or "Iraq", we will be consistently referred to a Select Committee whose meetings and report we do not yet know about? Is not that a way of reducing the power of Back Benchers to ask questions of the Executive?

Mr. Speaker: As the Speaker, I am not responsible for such answers.

Patrick Cormack: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) mentioned the making of statements outside the House. You, Sir, have often deprecated that, and I wonder if I may suggest a solution. You have charge over the cell at the foot of the Clock Tower. Could you not send to that cell for several hours any Minister who transgresses in future?

Mr. Speaker: I would not comment on that matter.

Angus Robertson: Further to the point of order concerning boundaries in Scotland, you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the reports in a number of newspapers are based on unattributed Government sources who have let it be known that the cut will not be included in the Queen's Speech. Now that there is so much uncertainty about that matter, is it not right and proper that the Government should make a statement about it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not read too much into that. He should perhaps read the newspapers, but he should not always believe them. They sometimes get it wrong, as I know from experience.

Communications Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Communications Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 3rd December 2002 and 10th February 2003:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
	2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the second column.
	
		
			 Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Nos. 1 and 2 6.00 p.m. 
			 Nos. 3 to 38 7.30 p.m. 
			 Nos. 39 to 114 9.00 p.m. 
			 Nos. 115 to 278 10.00 p.m. 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	4. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement—[Tessa Jowell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 165.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Communications Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 155 and 196. If the House agrees to either amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 3
	 — 
	General Duties of OFCOM

Lords amendment: No 1

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof and Lords amendments Nos. 4, 6 to 10, 151 and 152.

Tessa Jowell: When Lords amendment No. 1 was considered in another place, it was the will of their lordships that Ofcom be given a principal duty to the citizen and consumer and that, within that duty, the citizen's interest should take precedence. The amendment went on to say that Ofcom should discharge its duty to the consumer and citizen, where appropriate, by promoting competition. The Government can see the appeal of the amendment, particularly the strong attraction of placing the word "citizen" in the legislation. As hon. Members will be aware, the Government had sought not to use that as a legislative term for fear of confusion with legislation on nationality. However, so much has been said in both Houses on the subject that we believe that we can rely on the courts to understand that the citizen interest runs deep through the Bill in the civic sense of the word, applying to such matters as high standards in television and radio, public service broadcasting, universal service for telecoms and the optimal allocation of spectrum.
	However, the Government can also see the dangers of such an amendment. Lord Currie, chairman of Ofcom, said in another place:
	"The amendment . . . had a second impact, which was to put the citizen's interest above that of the consumer in the area of broadcasting and spectrum, but not in that of telecoms. That creates different duties in different parts of Ofcom's activities, which will cause difficulty. It will make Ofcom subject to judicial review and may reduce the effectiveness of Ofcom. It will be the big players, not the small players, who will take advantage of that."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 2003; Vol. 651, c. 260.]
	The Government agree with him. An over-rigid hierarchy of duties could well become a licence for judicial review.
	Ofcom must, like the existing broadcast regulators, strive to further the interests of consumers and citizens as appropriate, and with equal vigour. It must also have the necessary flexibility to achieve its aims. We absolutely believe that the consumer interest is usually best served by the promotion of competition, but I am advised that keeping the Bill as it stands will leave Ofcom vulnerable to legal challenge. In citizen-interest issues, competition is only one possible solution and, more often than not, Ofcom will need to act under its licensing powers. I can assure the House that the Government clearly understand the difference between the interests of consumers and the interests of providers.
	Therefore, the Government ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 1 and agree instead with our proposal in amendments (a), (b) and (c). Our amendments would remove any potential dangers in differing interpretations of the previous amendments while retaining the concept that Ofcom shall have a primary duty to citizens and consumers, whose interests shall be equal.
	Furthermore, when the duty to the consumer and the duty to the citizen come into conflict, there will be transparency and accountability as a result of our amendments. Ofcom will publish a reasoned statement as soon as possible after a decision, explaining how the duties came into conflict, how Ofcom resolved the conflict, and the reasons behind its decision. The Government believe that that strikes the right balance. The communications industry is not like any other industry; it is central to the health of our society and the health of our democracy.
	This is something in which the Government believe, head and heart. It is hard to imagine any Government of this country taking a contrary view. It is also something that the Ofcom board must feel in its head and heart, as was reflected by what Lord Currie said in another place. We understand how important it is for the legislation to reflect it as well, and I believe that, as amended, it will.
	When the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee set about its work, it said that it wanted to make a good Bill better. I believe that the whole process of parliamentary scrutiny has made the Bill better, and the changes that the Government are making today will ensure that from beginning to end, our concern to protect the interests of both citizen and consumer will be reflected throughout the Bill.
	Beginning at clause 3, with the duty as now formulated, there is a clear link in the logic of the Bill. It now encompasses increased protections for content standards, and proceeds to the plurality test that we will debate later. I commend the changes to the House. I can confirm that, if carried here, they would command the support of both Lord Currie, chairman of Ofcom, and Lord Puttnam, Chairman of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, who moved the amendment in another place.
	Lords amendment No. 4 requires Ofcom to have regard to the principles of better regulatory practice in all cases. The Government listened to concerns in both Houses and in industry, and were persuaded that the previous drafting left Ofcom a degree of discretion on whether to apply the principles. The amendment removes that element of discretion. We have, however, retained the concept that Ofcom should have regard to the matters set out in this part of the general duties.
	It may be helpful if I explain, as my noble Friend Lord Davies of Oldham did in another place, why we believe that that concept is the right one to use here. It will not be sufficient for Ofcom to consider the principles of good regulatory practice for the sake of form only, or to consider them and then reject them for no good reason. That is because for a person or body to have regard to a matter when taking specified action is a substantial legal obligation. If a person or body fails to have regard to the matter in deciding what action to take, or has regard to it in the wrong way, the action taken is liable to be held by a court to be unlawful or legally ineffective.
	Lords amendment No. 8 closes a gap by including the interests of the different ethnic communities in the list of things to which Ofcom must have regard when carrying out its functions. We do not envisage Ofcom's having any kind of interventionist role when it comes to the representation of ethnic minorities on screen. I firmly believe that this is a matter for the broadcasting industry to tackle itself, and indeed it is already addressing it, but the amendment strengthens Ofcom's commitment under existing race relations legislation, and will help it to embed diversity in the culture of its organisation.
	Lords amendment No. 10 requires Ofcom to include an impact assessment of how the proposal will further or secure the performance of its general duties, or how the performance of those duties will be furthered or secured in relation to the proposal. It is one more provision to ensure that Ofcom operates openly and transparently.

John Whittingdale: We are on the home straight, after a long race, which has occupied about eight months. However, we are reaching the point where we can probably achieve consensus on almost every amendment before us. I hope that that is an indication that we are succeeding in improving the Bill.
	Looking around the Chamber, I see many of the familiar faces that I have come to know over the past eight months. Both Front-Bench teams have seen some changes. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) who will be joining in the debate from the Back Benches. I note that changes to the Government Front-Bench team mean that the Secretary of State has had to join us this afternoon, as ministerial responsibilities for broadcasting have been translated to the House of Lords. I welcome the Secretary of State's presence and many of us will find it helpful that she is in the Chamber to set out the Government's background thinking about the amendments with an authority that we might otherwise lack. Many people will be interested to hear what she has to say.
	The first group of amendments, on general duties, goes to the very heart of Ofcom. We have already spent a great deal of time debating such issues. The main question covers whether Ofcom should necessarily have a general duty to promote the interests of citizens, or the whole of the community, or whichever phrase of the day the Government have chosen, as against the interests of consumers. In Committee, the Opposition tabled an amendment that Ofcom should have regard to the interests of citizens.
	Part of the difficulty in considering such issues is that they reflect the general problem of establishing a single regulator with both an economic function and a content function. We have always been sympathetic to bringing the five regulators together in a single body, but it is nevertheless the case that the regulator will have to undertake two very different functions, which may, occasionally, come into conflict.
	In considering whether there should be a general duty to promote the interests of citizens, we believe that there will always be cases when the national interest will extend beyond the narrower interest of consumers. In Committee, I referred to the desirability of public service broadcasting as an example. Public service broadcasting often caters for extremely small groups, almost by definition in some cases; it does not cater for majority tastes. That is part of the reason why we need public service programmes. We certainly accept that there are wider interests that go beyond those of the few consumers who watch such programmes. It is in the national interest that public service broadcasting should be available for those who might want to watch it in the future.
	Similarly, although the roll-out of broadband benefits individual consumers, there is also a wider economic national interest. That, too, should be properly reflected by giving Ofcom these wider responsibilities. The Government amendments accept that Ofcom should have that wider regard—to citizens as well as to consumers. We have argued for that for a long time, so obviously we strongly welcome that idea.
	Going beyond that proposal, it has also been argued that a hierarchy of duties is needed and that the interests of citizens should be given primacy over considerations. The House of Lords argued for that and, indeed, amended the Bill to take it into account. Furthermore, colleagues on both sides of the House have signed an early-day motion calling on the Government to accept the proposal. However, I, like the Secretary of State, have been influenced by the comments of those whom we are asking to undertake the job of regulating the industry.
	The Secretary of State referred to the recent speech by Lord Currie, who is the chairman of Ofcom. She was right to draw attention to the fact that, in his Third Reading speech, he pointed out that if the interests of citizens were given priority over the interests of consumers, it would cause him real difficulties in carrying out his duties as the chairman of Ofcom.
	I also recently heard Stephen Carter give a speech to the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, in which he went a little further, saying that he saw real problems if the existing parity between the duties were removed and priority had to be given to one over the other. He gave examples of possible conflicts that might occur in the future. For instance, Ofcom might want to allocate additional spectrum to free view, and it might be argued that that would be desirable, not only in the interests of citizens, but in those of consumers in due course. He pointed to the fact that several existing regulators—particularly the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority—have a twin duty, and that that has not caused a problem. The regulators are well used to dealing with twin duties, but if one duty were given priority over the other, as the Secretary of State suggested, a decision could be challenged by judicial review, which could cause real difficulties.
	I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have attempted to meet the concern expressed in the House of Lords with the amendments that they have tabled today, especially with the additional requirement that Ofcom will have to publish a decision if it sees a conflict between those two objectives. It will need to set out precisely where that conflict lies and why the decision has been reached accordingly. That is an improvement. Given that the Government have proposed that requirement and the fact that Ofcom's chairman and chief executive have expressed concern, I accept the Government's argument that we should not support Lords amendment No. 1, and I am willing to support the Government amendments.
	I wish to touch on only one other issue. Among the many listed duties that Ofcom will have to perform, Lords amendment No. 4 will give priority to the requirement that Ofcom abide by the better regulatory principles. Before that amendment, that requirement was No. 2 on a list of 14, and concern was expressed in the industry that it had not been given the importance that it deserved. We argued very strongly in Committee that the better regulation requirement should be put right at the front of Ofcom's general duties, but the Government were not persuaded at the time. I am delighted that the Government now appear to have been persuaded about that because I continue to believe that it is extremely important.
	There is no doubt that Ofcom will be an enormously powerful body. I believe and hope that it will be a force for good, but nevertheless safeguards need to be built into its operating principles. In particular, the requirements that regulations should not be excessive and that there should be transparency and accountability are very important. I draw attention to the fact that chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, David Arculus, recently wrote an article in which he drew attention to the tidal wave of regulation affecting businesses and said:
	"Some of the problem lies with independent regulators, who are keen to make the most of the new powers they have been given".
	I am sure that Lord Currie and Mr. Carter will not adopt that practice.

John Greenway: My hon. Friend very generously paid tribute to my efforts as part of the Front-Bench team, and, likewise, I wish to do the same for him, but does he recall making a lengthy and extremely well argued speech on this very matter at the beginning of the process? The length and vigour of his argument was misinterpreted at the time, but does not this example show that the Government now appear to accept most of the arguments that we put from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee? I am very glad that they have done so.

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We may find that a recurring theme in our debates this afternoon is the number of occasions on which arguments that we put in Committee, which appeared not to find favour with the Government, have been adopted by them subsequently. This late conversion is of course extremely welcome—there is nothing like a sinner who repenteth. My hon. Friend is right to draw to the House's attention that Lords amendment No. 4, accepted by the Government, was first advanced by us in Committee, and I am delighted that the Government have now seen the wisdom of it. It is extremely important.

Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the whole question of independent regulators being subject to the Better Regulation Task Force came out of the Puttnam report, and a number of references were made when we expressed concern about the independent regulator following Government policy?

John Whittingdale: I would not want to claim exclusive authorship. As the hon. Gentleman, who sat through our debates in Committee, will recognise, however, we advanced the proposal at the time but were sadly unsuccessfully in persuading the Government in Committee. I will not dwell on the matter any longer, however, as we are all now united on the fact that it is important that Ofcom should operate under the better regulatory principles and that those should be given priority. I therefore welcome that amendment. Indeed, I will not oppose the amendments tabled by the Government.

Brian White: Unlike the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), I have been involved in this Bill for two years, as I was involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and some of the other preparatory work. One of the recurring themes of the White Paper and the Puttnam committee, however, was the issue of citizens. It was disconcerting in Committee to have the parliamentary counsel's advice that judges could not distinguish between "citizen" in terms of how we now understand it and in terms of the amendment, and the narrow definition in terms of nationality. I am glad that that taboo has finally been broken. That raises some questions, however, about the quality of parliamentary counsel's advice and about whether the kind of alternative advice that went to the Puttnam committee means that the monopoly on providing such advice to Government should be subject to some form of competition. No doubt we will return to that issue in due course.
	A conflict of interest has always existed among the general duties of Ofcom. It is particularly important that Ofcom will have to explain why it makes particular decisions and how it resolves its conflicts of interests and the decisions that it has made. The part of the Government's amendment that requires that to be reported is therefore extremely important. I hope that it is also included in Ofcom's annual report to Parliament. With that, I welcome the Government amendments.

Nick Harvey: As has already been observed, we have followed a long course to get to this point, and it is no surprise that we find ourselves yet again addressing questions of the main duties and citizenship. Those were raised, as has already been observed, in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, in the debate on Second Reading and several times in Committee. I am glad that eventually the rather more telling arithmetic in the House of Lords has had the effect that it has, and that the Government have had a late conversion to various points that they stoutly resisted earlier. In particular, they displayed a bizarre reluctance to concede the word "citizen", as has just been mentioned, yet here we are considering at this late stage Government amendments with the word "citizen" in them. I welcome that because it is the right formula and the right approach.
	The process has been something of a battle. The first battle was to get the Government to accept that a general public interest—as I think that it was first formulated—existed. Initially, there was great resistance to the idea that there was anything other than a consumer interest. Of course, the two things are very different, and the interests of the wider public are not necessarily the same as the interests of the consumer of a particular product or service.

Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that was highlighted in the Government's White Paper that gave rise to the Bill?

Nick Harvey: It might indeed have been highlighted in the Government's White Paper but nevertheless previous amendments that would have inserted such provisions into the Bill were stoutly resisted. I am pleased that we are proceeding by stages. Although such provisions are included in later clauses, the amendments to clause 3 will have far more effect. Lords amendment No. 1 would provide that citizenship issues would be Ofcom's primary responsibility, and the formula in the Government amendments strikes a perfectly sensible balance. We must bear in mind the possible effect of agreeing to a measure that could lead to many cases of judicial review. The Government have framed their amendments sensibly by putting the two duties alongside each other and I am happy enough to support those amendments.
	I am pleased that Lords amendment No. 4 provides that better regulation principles will be absolutely at the top of Ofcom's agenda because I spoke up for such a provision in Committee. Ofcom has an incredibly important role and it is only right for it to work in such a way.
	I add to the consensus by saying that I am delighted that we have reached a sensible view, even at this late stage. I am happy to support the formula that the Government have suggested.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said that we had been going through the Bill for some two years. I remember attending a meeting during my second day at the BBC in 1998 in which we debated how we could affect the Government's then forthcoming Bill on communications, so I have been engaged in the process for five years. There has been much talk of sinners repenting—incidentally, we are delighted that Conservative Members have repented their views on the national minimum wage—but I am more reminded of the quotation about the battle done.
	The important point behind Lords amendment No. 1 and Government amendments (a) to (c) is that citizens' rights in society should be considered in addition to those of consumers. Many licence payers do not feel like citizens but subjects because the BBC, or whatever body designs the broadcasting ecology around them, often treats them as though they have no rights at all. I am struck by how important it will be for Ofcom to ensure that the broadcasting ecology delivers for ordinary citizens and consumers when it puts the provisions of the amendments into practice.
	A matter of immediate concern faces many ordinary consumers and citizens throughout the country, especially those in rural and semi-rural areas where the BBC has made no Freeview service available and there is no provision for cable television. Such people and households had no choice about how to get most of the free-to-air channels unless they bought a digital satellite box and got the free solus card from the BBC. However, they might not get such a card anymore because the BBC decided last week to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement with other broadcasters to deliver all free-to-air channels to households throughout the country.
	The problem for Ofcom will be the same as that faced by the Independent Television Commission. The ITC says that it does not have a role to ensure that ITV, Channel 4, S4C and Channel 5 are made available to households that have taken the free-to-air option via satellite television. About 1 million households are directly affected by the situation. If Sky chooses to switch off the solus cards in the next few weeks, those people might be unable to watch "Big Brother" or "Coronation Street" at all. Ironically, having gone down the digital television route, they will have to return to analogue thereby incurring the additional expenditure of buying a new aerial, costing in the region of £150 to £200, and, more importantly, undermining the Government's strategy of getting people to go digital so that we reach analogue switch off in the next five to seven years.
	It is vital that Ofcom takes the issue seriously in terms not just of delivering for consumers through competition rules, but of considering the needs of citizens to have access to a diversity of programming, especially news, from a variety of sources with a variety of voices. I hope that the amendments will enable Ofcom to do precisely that.

Andrew Lansley: I am glad to have the opportunity to comment on the amendments. As other hon. Members observed, those of us who sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee have spent at least 14 months on the subject. The amendments reflect the fourth recommendation of the Committee that there should be a hierarchy of duties and that the principal duty should reflect the necessity to further the interests of citizens and consumers. I am grateful that the Government have seen fit to take on board the substance of that recommendation.
	Although the Secretary of State rightly did not bore us with the full process, when I moved an amendment in Standing Committee to reflect the views of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, the Government resisted the word "citizen", but they intended to accept part of our argument by including a reference to promoting the interests of the community as a whole. It is worth noting that they reflected that thought on Report, but they have rightly gone on to abandon their resistance to the use of the word "citizen". Lords amendment No. 9 defines citizen as a member of public in the UK. As the Secretary of State set out, the terms in which Ministers have explained their amendments in lieu make it clear that that is not to be defined in the context of nationality, but as applying to any member of the public. That is an important provision, which I welcome.
	I also welcome the better regulatory principles, which are to be given substance and applied in all cases. That reflects recommendation 24 of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee to introduce the Better Regulation Task Force principles and to apply them in all cases. It is good to see that. I thank the Secretary of State for taking that recommendation on board.
	Members in another place might want to determine whether the substance of their aims has been achieved. I am certain that it has and, as the Secretary of State said, Lord Puttnam would no doubt concur. In so far as there are differences with the Lords proposals, it is possible that those could have given rise to difficulties. The respective interests of citizens and consumers would have been defined in cases before courts rather than by Ofcom, which can take a flexible approach to the merits of individual cases and is accountable directly to us in Parliament.
	Members of another place, especially on Third Reading, said there was a lack of appropriate scrutiny of the Bill in this House. That is true to an extent, but it was not so much a case of whether the issues were raised in the House and Standing Committee, because in general they were; it was more a case of the extent to which the Government were willing to consider amendments, especially those with the backing of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. I believe that if the Opposition clearly have the better of the argument, the Government should accede to it. That happens pretty rarely. Although the Government regarded the pre-legislative scrutiny as having substantial merit and accepted 120 recommendations, they did not accept some of the most important recommendations. It has been a long time since then.
	I share Lord Puttnam's view that it was a pity that Departments did not perceive the Bill as legislation that had made progress through both Houses in co-operation with members of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. Pre-legislative scrutiny might have been better in that respect, and should be so in future. If a future Committee is anything like the one in which we participated, its members will become thoroughly familiar with the content of the legislation and how it is intended to work, and issues will be raised in order to give better effect to policy and Parliament's intentions. Members of such Committees could be worked with to a much greater extent than I fear was the case for many months before, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said, the arithmetic in the other place made the Government feel that they had no choice but to co-operate positively and actively. The amendments clearly demonstrate the benefits that flow when that happens.

John Grogan: I welcome the Government's amendments on general duties. I particularly celebrate the use of the word "citizen", which has a lineage of at least 2,000 years. It is a progressive and egalitarian term. Now that we have created a precedent for its use in this context, I very much hope that it can be used in other contexts and by other regulators. The Post Office regulator, Postcomm, would probably benefit from assuming some duties towards citizens and, indeed, consumers.
	As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said, this has been something of a battle. It would be churlish not to recognise the role of their lordships in sticking to their guns on a cross-party basis. When the Bill left this House with the support of both Front-Bench teams, Lords of all parties, but led by Lord Puttnam, required a certain steel and determination in order to give us a chance to discuss these amendments. They used as a reference point the Puttnam committee report. I welcome the fact that the Government listened.
	There is one point that I should like to explore a little more with the Secretary of State. She drew a distinction between consumers and the interests of service providers. The dual duty in favour of consumers and citizens puts Ofcom very much on the side of the little guy or girl as opposed to big businesses. I wonder whether she acknowledges that. Ofcom will be operating in the interests of ordinary members of the public and customers. It will represent the interests of businesses —whether big or small—only as customers of service providers. That gives a clear and welcome focus to Ofcom's work, and is very much in line with the Puttnam committee's original aims.

Tessa Jowell: I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions. I endorse the points that have been made about the benefits, particularly for legislation such as this, of pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that the lessons that have been identified as beneficial to the development of good legislation will be applied in future.
	The Government have seriously engaged with the arguments that have been made from whatever source. Disputes in consideration of this Bill have not broken on traditional party political lines. That has been one reason why, especially in another place, we have engaged with such a large number of Members.
	To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), the origins of the debate about citizens and consumers lie in debates in Committee in this House. The Government sought to respond to the well argued points by inserting in the Bill before it went to another place a reference to the community as a whole. That was for a simple technical reason. We were advised that "citizen" had, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) has made clear, a specific and narrow use. We have overcome that obstacle, which is why "citizen" now appears in the Bill. I am glad that there is a broad welcome for that.
	I am delighted that the proposed amendment to the general duties of Ofcom has attracted such wide support on both sides of the House. I commend the amendment to the House.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 6 to 10, 151 and 152 agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 2

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 153, 154, 155 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 156 to 187, 189, 191, 192, 231 to 234 and 278.

Tessa Jowell: The amendments will extend the public interest test in the Enterprise Act 2002 to enable a media plurality test to be carried out in the event of a qualifying media merger. The Secretary of State will be able to intervene in such a merger when he or she believes that it will have a damaging effect on plurality. The test will prevent unacceptable levels of cross-media dominance and ensure a minimum level of plurality. The Government will wish to publish guidance setting out our policy on when the Secretary of State is likely to intervene. This guidance, which we hope will be available for consultation in the autumn, will explain that that intervention will normally be only in areas that are not covered by media ownership rules, in particular: national newspapers with more than 20 per cent. of the market and Channel 5; national newspapers with more than 20 per cent. of the market and national radio service; Channel 3; Channel 3 and national radio, Channel 5 and national radio; national radio and national radio.
	We do not believe that intervention would normally be necessary where there has never been media ownership restriction, or in areas where there continue to be ownership rules, as the continuing rules will themselves protect plurality.

John Greenway: The introduction of the plurality issue at this late stage has understandably given rise to concern in some parts of the media world, and particularly local radio. The Secretary of State will recall accepting before we commenced consideration of the Bill in Committee that the concentration of ownership of local radio should be moved down from three plus one, the BBC, to only two plus one. Can the right hon. Lady give an assurance to the House that the new subsection (2C) in amendment No. 155 does not undermine the commitment that she gave in respect of two plus one? It concerns local radio that the plurality test, which I do not believe is aimed at it, might nevertheless affect it.

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I reiterate that it is not anticipated that the plurality test would apply in those areas where rules have been included in the Bill. It is not intended that there should be further regulation on top of the rules that have been much debated and now form part of the legislation. However, intervention through the plurality test will be at the Secretary of State's discretion, and we would not rule out wider use in extreme or rare cases. There may be some cases including, for instance, satellite news services, where exceptionally—I underline the exceptional nature of such cases, which were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—the Secretary of State may have an interest. However, we do not anticipate frequent intervention in those areas.The Secretary of State will be able to intervene in a media merger to ensure that first, there is sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises serving any audience; secondly, that there is a wide range of high-quality broadcasting that appeals to different tastes and interests; and, thirdly, that there is a genuine commitment to Ofcom's standards code under clause 312.
	Let me now move on to amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 155, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). They seek to ensure that the plurality test will be applicable only to changes of control involving Channel 3, Channel 5 and national radio multiplex licences. We considered writing a narrow test into the Bill. However, in the vital area of media plurality, we consider that the test should be available in the widest range of situations. We concede that on the face of it there is a price to be paid in terms of uncertainty but, as I have already said, the Secretary of State will publish advice and guidance as to the application of the test, which should go a long way towards informing the industry about the Government's proposed approach. That is a much better tactic than adopting a narrow test, which might not be available in a case that merits investigation on plurality grounds but falls outside the criteria that the amendments would insert in the Bill.
	We have indicated the cases where we would expect to use the test, and that will be reflected in guidance. I hope that I have made it clear that in exceptional circumstances and if there are genuine plurality concerns, we may want to apply the test more widely. It should also be recognised that, however wide the power, a decision to intervene will still be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. With that explanation, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed to a vote.

John Whittingdale: The Lords amendments introduce a plurality or public interest test that, in many ways, is biggest change to the Bill. However, that change is very late—when the issue was first debated in the Commons, the Government decided that they were not in favour of a change, but their reasons for deciding that it is now necessary are clear to all of us. They have more to do with the Government making sure that they got their business through the House of Lords than any sudden conversion to the merits of the argument. Given that the test has been added to the Bill, it is important to the many broadcasters and, indeed, newspaper groups that may be affected that the Secretary of State make a clear statement about the precise way in which it will operate.
	When we talked about the desirability of a plurality test in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made the case for it. While I did not agree with everything that he said, he made some strong points, especially when he pointed out that as the test already exists for newspapers, it is curious not to extend it to broadcasters. At the time, I agreed that that was a contradiction—why should something apply in one case, but not the other? It can be argued that the case for a test is stronger for broadcasters than newspapers, especially as there are no barriers to entry in the newspaper industry. On the other hand, an extensive regime in the broadcasting industry already controls content and puts obligations on broadcasters. We have already dealt with that at considerable length elsewhere in the Bill.
	Our general approach has always been that the Government were originally correct in their view that the best way to ensure that the broadcasters provided the kind of programming that was thought to be desirable would be through content obligations, rather than by trying to address the issue of ownership. That was the reason originally given for the deregulation that the Bill still achieves, through the removal of some of the existing ownership restrictions. As the Secretary of State knows, we have always supported that.
	Nevertheless, we are concerned that the introduction at the last minute of an additional hurdle for anybody seeking to acquire a broadcasting company will undermine the thrust of the Bill, which was to introduce a lighter-touch media ownership regime. At the same time, it will introduce a degree of uncertainty, which it was hoped the Bill would remove. I noticed that the Secretary of State said that the introduction of uncertainty was a price that would have to paid—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady corrects me by saying a small price, but when we debated the matter in Committee, the then Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), said that
	"it inevitably leads to uncertainty . . . Although businesses may be used to dealing with uncertainty daily, they do not actively seek out uncertainty. We should make clear rules when they are appropriate. If we accepted the amendment"—
	which would have introduced a plurality test—
	"we would effectively be putting those who wanted to acquire media assets in a worse position. In addition to complying with the clear and transparent ownership rules and satisfying the competition authorities, an owner would face the further obstacle of satisfying a plurality test. The Bill is intended to remove regulations, not impose new and unnecessary ones."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 6 February 2003; c. 1002–04.]
	I found the Minister quite persuasive on that occasion. I still find him persuasive, so I regret the fact that the Government have retreated from that position and have accepted the calls in another place for the introduction of a plurality test. It is important that we see precisely how it is intended to operate. Much of our concern lies with the scope of the Government's proposals in response to the narrow set of concerns expressed by those who have been arguing for the introduction of such a test.
	It is clear from the debates in another place and from the remarks of the Secretary of State this afternoon that those concerns relate to the ownership of Channel 3, Channel 5 and national radio. It has been confirmed that the cases in which the Secretary of State would consider intervening, perhaps with the application of the plurality test, are those where national newspapers with more than 20 per cent. of the market were seeking to acquire Channel 5, where national newspapers with more than 20 per cent. of the market were seeking to acquire a national radio service, mergers and acquisitions affecting Channel 3, Channel 3 seeking to acquire a national radio service, or a merger between national radio services.
	Concerns have been expressed about how that will work. In some areas, it seems that restrictions beyond the existing ones will apply. In particular, as the House knows, there is the possibility of a merger between two Channel 3 companies. It would be helpful if the Government could make it clear that the plurality test would not be applied retrospectively if a Carlton-Granada merger, which is currently under consideration by the Competition Commission, went through.
	At present, there is no legislative barrier to a merger between regional Channel 3 companies and national radio licensees. The existing restrictions apply only to the national Channel 3 licensee, which is GMTV, and a national radio franchise. Can the Government confirm that it is not their intention to introduce a new restriction by applying the plurality test to regional ITV and national radio mergers? Or will the Government break their pledge to restrict the plurality test to areas where previous rules are being lifted?
	As drafted, the plurality test can be applied to all mergers involving broadcasters, or broadcasters and newspapers that qualify for investigation under the Enterprise Act 2002. That could mean that the test will apply to mergers and acquisitions among cable and satellite channels, which have been launched in the UK without any of the special privileges or protections given to broadcasters that use terrestrial frequencies and have until now been subject not to any ownership restrictions, but only to the application of competition law.
	Such provision will again create a new layer of regulation and introduce uncertainty into a sector in which there has never been any previous expression of concern. For example, the acquisition of the National Geographic Channel or the History Channel by Discovery Networks is now potentially within the scope of the plurality test, as is the acquisition of additional music channels by MTV. Given the Government's clearly stated aims, why did they not simply produce a test that focused directly and exclusively on the identified problem instead of suddenly introducing at the last minute a sweeping new rule for all broadcasters and then saying that they will disapply it in respect of most of them? The purpose of our amendments is to put in practice what the Secretary of State has said and to limit the plurality test to a relevant merger situation that involves only a change of control in respect of Channels 3 or 5 or a national radio multiplex licence.
	The Secretary of State went on to repeat what has already been said by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting in another place. She said that the Government had considered taking a narrow power, but that there were extreme and rare circumstances in which they might wish to apply the test more widely. She seemed to indicate that it was conceivable that the Government might want to apply the test in respect of satellite news services. However, I am surprised that they wish to apply a plurality test to any cable and satellite channels, even in exceptional circumstances. After all, those considerations have never been applied to those channels before and no one has been pressing for their application. As we heard from the Minister in another place, the Government have made clear in the past their view that such a test is unnecessary.
	I am aware that the Government have indicated that they intend to produce guidance on the plurality test that will set out more narrowly how it will be applied in practice. We have made it plain that that is not satisfactory and that, as the guidance has not yet been produced, it is very difficult to judge the merits of the amendments without what will undoubtedly be the most significant part of the Government's proposal. Of course, we understand that the amendments have appeared only in the past few days, so there has not been enough time to produce the guidance, but that is another reason why the Government should have introduced a more targeted plurality test in the Bill. In coming to debate the amendments, we would then at least have had a full package of policy proposals to hand instead of having to rely on the Government's promise of guidance to come.
	We have considerable concerns about the fact that the Government have introduced at the last minute a test that they have until now argued was unnecessary, while it also appears that the scope of the test goes considerably further than the areas about which major concern has been expressed. For that reason, we hope that the Secretary of State will give as much detail as she possibly can about precisely how she envisages that the test will operate. I must say to her that its introduction has caused widespread concern throughout the media industry—in the television broadcasting world and among the radio stations and many newspapers.

Nick Harvey: I welcome the arrival of the plurality test even at this late stage. The introduction of such a test was suggested in the report of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. I applaud the endeavours of Lord Puttnam, Lord McNally and Lord Crickhowell, among others, in pressing the case for the plurality test and in marshalling their arguments on ownership issues in a way that led the Government to agree that such a test should be introduced.
	I listened with interest to the remarks of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who has tabled what I presume to be probing amendments dealing with the scope of the plurality test and how it will apply. He raises interesting and worthwhile points that we should stop to consider. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State will not allow him to tempt her too far in the direction of ruling out the test in all sorts of circumstances. We will start to undermine it if, even at this early stage, we rule out its use in certain circumstances.
	The Secretary of State gave a measured account of the circumstances in which she anticipates that the test will be used. Her remarks will form part of the parliamentary record and, as that is increasingly brought up in legal proceedings, will serve as an indication of what Parliament intended. She also explained that there will be guidance. I am not seeking to minimise the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford—they have some merit—but I appeal to the Secretary of State to address them in her guidance notes, not to get into the business of saying that the plurality test would never be used for A, B or C, because that would undermine the whole point of having it. I admit that it would be inappropriate to use it in some of the instances that the hon. Gentleman described, but that is a decision, come the time, for the Secretary of State of the day and for Ofcom, which should use common sense in applying it. It would not be at all helpful unnecessarily to minimise its scope at this stage.
	I very much welcome the arrival of the plurality test. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has spoken about it on many occasions, not least during the proceedings of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, and I am delighted that it is finally here.

John Grogan: I, too, welcome the arrival of the plurality test, which puts strict limits on the deregulatory nature of the Bill. The other place has lined up with Parliaments in other parts of the world in rebelling a little against the efforts of the Executive to deregulate the media sector. For example, in Australia the federal Parliament is resisting similar efforts by the Australian Government to deregulate cross-media ownership; and in the United States, Republican and Democrat Senators are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pause in relation to similar proposals.
	If we are honest, the motivation for the changes in another place was based on fears about the deregulation of cross-media controls on the ownership of Channel 5. It was felt that it would perhaps be inappropriate to allow, without a pause for thought, someone who owned, shall we say, 40 per cent. of our Sunday newspaper market, 30 per cent. of our daily newspaper market, and—I throw it in for the sake of another example—our major satellite provider to own a terrestrial television station as well. The plurality test provides the potential for such a pause for thought. I hope that the Secretary of State will stick to a general plurality test. If we started to restrict it to particular circumstances, we would, for example, restrict its application if Ofcom decided to liberalise ownership restrictions in other areas. The plurality test will operate as a safeguard in such a situation. Given that it will be subject to strict guidance, I hope that in extreme circumstances it can have more general application.
	I followed with interest every word that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said. In 1995, he wrote that famous deregulatory pamphlet, and until this debate I had always seen him as the touchstone of advocating market forces in every possible situation. I think that he has been got at in accepting the general plurality test. I am sure that it is not genuinely in his soul. On 2 July, he wrote in the Financial Times, as described in another place, that
	"the plurality test undermined the government's desire to relax the laws governing the media. The whole thrust of the communications bill is to liberalise the rules on ownership. A plurality test erects another obstacle in the way of takeovers within the media sector."
	A few days previously, he showed a little more uncertainty when he told The Guardian:
	"My view is that a plurality test has some merit, but it is very difficult to define. I would rather the test applied across the board, however, rather than just to certain companies."
	The hon. Gentleman displayed some confusion, and I hope that the plurality test is safe in the hands of any future Conservative Government. However, I am not sure about that.
	Let me deal with the charge that the test creates some uncertainty. It does, but Lord Borrie, who has some experience in those matters, is cited in column 909 of the Official Report, House of Lords as saying in Committee:
	"One cannot deny that during a period of reference there must be uncertainty as to the outcome—otherwise what would be the point of the reference? However, I would suggest that that is a small price to pay for ensuring a free and diverse media. Once ownership is changed, it is exceedingly difficult to revert to square one; the damage may have been done"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2003; Vol. 650, c. 909.]
	As I said earlier, our debates have a resonance throughout the world. I tried, with varying success, to translate some French, Spanish and Italian newspaper articles on the debates in the other place this morning. I note that an article in a Spanish newspaper about last week's debate translates as,
	"Blair is all for foreign investment in the media, but not Murdoch."
	Although I am not sure whether Alastair Campbell would have portrayed the plurality test in that light, I believe that, should Rupert Murdoch try to buy Channel 5, the plurality test would have a similar effect to the public interest test, which applied when he tried to buy Manchester United some years ago. After referring the bid to the competition authorities, the Secretary of State decided that it was not in the public interest. Many analysts expect a similar outcome under the plurality test if such a move were made for Channel 5.

John Greenway: I raise a technical point so that the Minister has time to check the matter before 6 pm. Amendment No. 155 refers to clause 368. A group of amendments—I believe that they are Nos. 156 to 187—change "newspaper" to "media". However, there is no amendment to replace the title of the clause, "Newspaper public interest considerations" with "Media public interest considerations". That may be an oversight, or I may have misunderstood, but amendment No. 155 adds an important proposed new subsection to the clause. In that context, the clause's title appears too narrow.
	I want to make two brief points. First, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that introducing the plurality test at this late stage changes the structure. However, unlike other hon. Members who contributed to the debate, I believe that clarity about its application is crucial. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's confirmation that it does not override the specific competition issues and media ownership aspects in the Bill. It is crucial to understand where Ofcom's first duty lies when it is considering such matters. Clarity is important, and I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's comments, although others clearly did not.
	Secondly, it is important to realise that amendment No. 155 deals with not only plurality but two other issues. Paragraph (b) covers the need to ensure that broadcasting
	"is both of a high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests".
	Paragraph (c) deals with
	"the need for persons carrying on media enterprises . . . to have a . . . commitment to the attainment . . . of . . . standards".
	The Committee's general view, across the party political divide, is that the objectives are worthy. I introduce only one note of caution, which is covered in other clauses. In imposing obligations on media enterprises, we must have regard to what is affordable. Hon. Members can sometimes become too fixed on what they would like in an ideal world and lose sight of reality and what is affordable. A merger of the two main ITV companies appears to be required because that is economically necessary in the current climate. When we passed the Broadcasting Act 1990, we had to rely on licences to enforce standards. That will remain the case; the licences are the mechanism for enforcing standards.
	Some hon. Members may believe that, in the campaign to restrict the size of the media empire that specific people—I shall not name them—may own, a victory has been won over the Government. I am not sure whether they can claim such a victory, but a provision in the measure about economic and commercial viability will be important when Ofcom considers the Bill in future and the way in which it will apply the new powers in amendment No. 155. After all, why do we have the BBC and pay it £2 billion of public money through the licence fee? The answer is, so that we retain a broadcaster to provide programmes that are not commercially viable. We should not always apply such a threshold to commercial broadcasters.

Andrew Lansley: As Lord Puttnam kindly referred to me in another place as the architect of the concept, I am grateful for two minutes in which to speak about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned a problem with the title of a clause. I understand that the crossheads are not part of the measure; they derive from the subject matter of the clause, but they do not dictate it. The title of the clause will change automatically.
	I am grateful to the Government for acceding to the arguments for the plurality test. Members of the Joint Scrutiny Committee will recall my argument that its purpose was never to create another hurdle for media mergers that would be the subject of ex ante ownership rules. The intention was for a structure that is designed for long-term future proofing. Ofcom, which is intended to help deregulation, should be able to remove the ownership rules that currently apply, consider subsequent ownership rules, and remove ex ante ownership rules as it can. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) pointed out, the merger regime should recognise that broadcasting, like newspapers, has characteristics that relate to the health of our democracy. We unanimously accept that the principal duty is to consumers and citizens. Any merger consideration should also be about consumer interest, as expressed through competition, and the health of our democracy, as expressed through the plurality test. I therefore support amendment No. 155.

Tessa Jowell: I shall be brief. The arguments have been expressed clearly and well. The debate has continued for approximately 18 months since the Bill's scrutiny began. The consideration has focused essentially on the best way in which to secure deregulation, future proofing of the provisions and protection of the public interest in recognition of the specific role that the media play in our society. By general consent, the plurality test in the Bill is an important safeguard. The measure remains deregulatory; it does not add a further layer of regulation and I commend the amendment to the House.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 3

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof.

Stephen Timms: Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have made clear our commitment to broadband. We have a target of achieving the most competitive and extensive broadband market in the G7 by 2005, and we have backed that up with a variety of actions and with funding. We now have well over 2 million broadband connections in the United Kingdom, and the rate of growth of more than 100,000 a month is one of the fastest in the world.
	We had reservations about whether to include a reference to broadband in the Bill, but we are strongly committed to broadband and we also agree that Ofcom will have a role in encouraging the fair development of the broadband market and in contributing to its competitiveness. As we are giving Ofcom a duty to secure the availability of a wide range of electronic communications services—including broadband services—we questioned whether it was necessary specifically to include the term "broadband" on the face of the legislation. However, given the importance that we attach to broadband, and the widespread support in both Houses for giving Ofcom an obligation to encourage its roll-out and take-up, we have accepted the principle of including a specific reference to it in the general duties. Amendment (a) does no more than ensure that that fits properly within the structure of clause 3 by requiring Ofcom to have regard to the desirability of encouraging the roll-out and take-up of broadband.
	I have used the term "broadband" because it is easier to use than "high-speed data transfer" services—the term used in the amendment. The two terms are probably interchangeable in everyday usage, but we have taken the view that "high-speed data transfer services" is preferable as a term for legislation.

Chris Bryant: Is not this one of the problems with the language involved? Whether we use "broadband" or "high-speed data transfer services", each is a relative term, depending on whether we are talking about 512 kilobytes per second, or 1,000, 1,500, or whatever. This illustrates one of the problems involved in writing this particular element into the Bill.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The term that we have adopted—"high-speed data transfer services"—is more likely to retain its currency for longer. The term "broadband" could well prove to be an expression of the moment, or at least of the period, in a way that "high-speed data transfer services" will not.

Brian White: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Timms: Yes, I will gladly give way to my hon. Friend, who has taken a close interest in this matter.

Brian White: Will it be Ofcom that decides what constitutes high speed, or will the Government recommend what the definition of that should be?

Stephen Timms: Ofcom will need to take a view on what this duty entails. It will do that in the light of what is happening in the data communications market in relation to those services that one could fairly regard as high speed, given the current state of the market. Of course, that will change as time goes on.
	I invite the House to agree to amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 3.

Michael Fabricant: Well, we had a high speed debate there from the Minister. He has rightly seen the light on the road to Damascus, or certainly on the road to the other place. It was the noble Lord, Lord Northesk who raised this issue in the House of Lords. Yet a rather rocky path has been trod with regard to getting this measure recognised in the Bill.
	When my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) raised the issue in the Chamber, the normally polite Minister slapped him down, saying
	"there is nothing in that new clause that is not already in the Bill, except for the specific reference to broadband. The Bill refers to promoting innovation and encouraging investment—broadband will certainly be the beneficiary of that".
	I am glad that the Minister now realises that he might not have been quite right on that occasion. On the promotion of broadband, the Minister went on to say:
	"That is, of course, the basis of the Bill. The regulator will have all the powers that the hon. Gentleman advocated"—
	that was a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk—
	"as his colleagues who sat through the Committee stage will tell him; but we want the legislation to last, and I therefore think our current formula is right."—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, cc. 738–740.]
	I am pleased to hear the Minister tell the House that he now knows that the Bill was wrong. We welcome any sinner who repenteth, and he is right to repent.
	The Minister rightly mentioned what the Government have done to promote broadband, but I believe that he protests too much. According to data published as recently as August 2002, South Korea has 9.2 broadband connections per 100 inhabitants, while Britain lags way behind in 20th place. I know that the Minister will say that that information is out of date—he has said such things in the past—and that Britain is now performing well in comparison with its neighbours. But that all comes down to the definition of broadband, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) pointed out earlier.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a delight to see him speaking from the Front Bench, I think for the first time. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] In Committee, he made the point that many rural parts of the country—and mining constituencies such as my own—will find it difficult to get broadband rolled out. I would like to point out that my office in Porth is now broadbanded at 512 kilobytes per second, and that Treorchy and Tonypandy will be done later next month.

Michael Fabricant: I am delighted to hear that, although I wonder whether it will really be 512 kilobytes per second. The hon. Gentleman will know that when a number of people are online at the same time, the 512 kilobytes are shared.
	That brings me to another point that I wanted to raise. We must acknowledge the value of British Telecom's decision to reduce the trigger level at which it will install broadband, according to the number of people who have expressed an interest in having it. Previously, BT had said that 600 people had to register their interest, but in many areas—including my own constituency of Lichfield—it has now reduced that number, making broadband far more accessible. We welcome that.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda asked a very good question earlier about what actually constituted broadband. That was echoed by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). What is broadband? One of the problems is that both BT and the Government define it as being as slow—not fast—as 112 kilobytes per second. That is slow! Those of us who have integrated services digital network connections—perhaps to access Citrix, which is the method that we use to access the House of Commons server when we are not in our offices on the parliamentary estate—will know that we need ISDN to provide a reasonably fast connection for that purpose. Those of us who broadcast from our homes need ISDN for that, too. A double ISDN circuit, provided by packages such as BT Home Highway, operates at 112 kilobytes per second. Nobody would say that that was broadband, however; it is merely ISDN2. I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who used to work for British Telecom.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is chastising the Minister, but does he not agree that it does not matter how good the equipment is, because people depend on the distant end and how good that is? A lot of his figures sound good but, in effect, we all need to be in the same system for it to work as he is saying.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I chastised the Minister only for claiming that we are doing so well in the international league. Patently, we are not. That is because the definition of broadband that the Government use is patently wrong. It includes very slow mechanisms for transmitting data. That is why Lord Northesk introduced the definition of high-speed data transfer. ISDN is low-speed data transfer; broadband does not include ISDN.

Brian White: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many of the countries to which he refers have had Government intervention to secure their advantage in broadband. Is he advocating Government intervention, or does he believe that the market will supply broadband?

Michael Fabricant: I never believe that the market alone can provide all that is required in modern society. The Government always have to intervene in one way or another. Whether this Government should intervene by helping to fund BT to ensure the wider and more rapid expansion of true broadband is a matter that the hon. Gentleman will have to put to the Minister.

Adrian Flook: It is a great pleasure to see a fellow member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport at the Dispatch Box. I believe that that is a first for my hon. Friend.
	Will my hon. Friend join me in my concern over rural areas? Even if we have a rough idea of what broadband will be in urban areas—I am very glad that BT has, after my intervention, reduced the level of indicated subscriptions required in Wellington in Somerset—in rural areas there are still huge problems about what broadband will be, let alone what size it will be. Could it be satellite or micro-link? In places such as Exmoor, there is no chance whatever of BT building super-highways through the hills.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is known as a strong advocate for the people of Taunton, and I do not mean just the town of Taunton—or is it the city?

Adrian Flook: The town.

Michael Fabricant: I am always careful about that because Lichfield, although a very small town, is also a cathedral city.
	My hon. Friend is also a strong advocate for people who live in rural areas. The Countryside Alliance, among other organisations, has pointed out the huge divide between urban and rural societies over access to broadband. When the Earl of Northesk introduced his amendment No. 5 in another place, which we now welcome, in this great Government conversion, and asked that this matter be included as a function of Ofcom and that the expression "high-speed data transfer" be used instead of "broadband", he pointed out that
	"95 per cent. of urban households have access to a broadband connection, as compared with 7 per cent. for rural households."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 June 2003; Vol. 650, c. 58.]
	That is a real problem. It is not a party political difficulty, and it must be addressed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) asked about other means of broadband connection than cable. Yes, that can be achieved by low-orbit satellite systems—although they have their disadvantages—and by wireless matrix connections.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to intervene on my hon. Friend and congratulate him very heartily indeed on his promotion to the Front Bench. He and I entered the House together and I am delighted to see him in his post.
	My hon. Friend knows that I have been campaigning for a long time to get broadband rolled out in the Cotswolds. I held a conference a week ago last Friday with the Federation of Small Businesses to try to provoke BT into more action on reducing its target thresholds for the small rural exchanges in my constituency. It is quite clear from that conference that alternative wireless technologies, including low-orbiting satellites, are being rolled out rapidly. If BT is not more proactive in its various technologies such as piggybacking exchanges, which we learnt about at the conference, it will simply be left behind. The business men in my constituency consider that there will be technological apartheid, compared with their urban counterparts, if broadband is not rolled out in rural areas.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful for his kind comments. We indeed entered the House at the same time. He is a very doughty advocate for his constituents who live in rural areas that are not served by broadband. When the countryside is experiencing such economic difficulty, the Government are quite rightly asking people working in the countryside, particularly farmers, to diversify. One of the means by which they can do that is using web services, but they can use web services, and download pictures quickly only if they are able to use broadband. That is not possible using double ISDN, which, in any other country, would not be classified as broadband. Again, I remind the House that the false claims made by the Government about the expansion of broadband in this country are patently not true.
	Another good reason why it is important not to use the term "broadband" was raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda when he mentioned the possibility of there being much faster speeds. I argue that there will be faster speeds. I would use the term "wideband", and there is no doubt in my mind that a time will come, perhaps five, 10 or 15 years from now, when television stations will be able to stream video from any part of the world. Whereas at present we can watch that through services such as Real Networks, which produces a rather herky-jerky picture, as it is known, we will then be able to enjoy pictures every bit as good as digital television is now. Incidentally, that means that the Bill will become almost irrelevant to broadcasting. At that stage, viewers will be able to watch television from any television station in the world that chooses to transmit its systems through wideband.

Chris Bryant: One is reminded of a song, "You say wideband, I say broadband". None the less, the important point is that the hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating giving widespread grants in rural areas to BT. That would wholly undermine the competitive nature of the market that we are trying to develop. Surely, if there is no killer application that people want to use, the idea of having broadband passing by their houses is almost irrelevant. We need to try to get all the public services in rural areas together to ensure that the applications that could be useful to them are delivered.

Michael Fabricant: Just to put the matter straight, I have advocated no such thing. When I was asked about it by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, I suggested that he ask his Front Benchers about it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), because it is exactly on his point that I want to intervene on my hon. Friend. We could encourage greater roll-out of broadband by using the roll-out that the Government will inevitably have to undertake for schools and to meet their e-commerce targets. Ofcom has a role here, so this Lords amendment is highly pertinent. It was raised during my conference that Chipping Campden school in my constituency gets broadband through a broad pipe, but that businesses surrounding that school cannot get it. Ofcom has a role in ensuring that such anomalies can be sorted out.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. He is not the only one to have had that argument presented to him. There is a whole argument over whether schools given access to ADSL through a broad pipe should become a node, from which links could be provided to businesses and other people who wish to access broadband. There are some technical difficulties with that over the speed at which data can be transmitted to and fro.
	I am sure that the Minister will go into considerable detail about the technical difficulties applying to both ADSL and local networks. One possibility, though, was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), who suggested the use of cells and microwave links for the provision of broadband on a broad—512 kilobytes per second—basis.
	Let me stress again the importance of the Government amendment, notwithstanding the lateness of the conversion. We owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Northesk—who was, I believe, one of the first to coin the phrase "high-speed data transfer", recognising that there would be wideband in the future. I hope that the Government will now finally recognise that a speed of 128 kilobytes per second does not constitute broadband. Let me paraphrase what was said by an American senator, changing it ever so slightly: "I have seen broadband, I have met broadband, and believe me, 128 kilobytes per second is no broadband."

John Robertson: I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests—and, unlike some Members who have spoken, I shall try not to rewrite history.
	The Bill covers an enormous number and a wide range of issues. As chair of the all-party group on telecommunications, I am pleased to have an opportunity to express my wish for all who want access to broadband to have it. I feel, however, that "broadband" is essentially a brand name: at the end of the day, it is not what communications are about. In Committee, I wanted an assurance from the Minister that the Bill would deal not just with what was currently covered by broadband, but with what would be covered by any band width in the future. Who knows? In the not too distant future there may be infinite band widths covering anything and everything. We probably cannot imagine what might be covered even in the next 50 years.
	Significant action will be required from Ofcom. I share the Government's goal of making Britain the most dynamic broadband market in the G7 countries. I appreciate what the Government have already done in appointing an e-envoy charged with the task of promoting roll-out and take-up of broadband, but huge areas of the country have no access to broadband, and we need to do more. The Government must invest in broadband to ensure that it exists in those areas.
	Broadband allows access to a greater range of services, and it is about more than just personal need and empowerment. It is of huge economic importance to the United Kingdom. Studies have shown the obvious benefits to community regeneration, but there will be wider economic benefits to the whole nation if we can achieve much wider broadband access than we have now. Without the necessary investment, some parts of the country will have fewer services and perhaps even a lower standard of living. Words are not as important as deeds, and the Government should invest, but—unlike other Members—I do not think that a single company should benefit from all the investment.
	I share the Government's commitment to widespread broadband provision by 2005. Given its regulatory role, it is essential for Ofcom's general remit to include making universal access to broadband a priority, and for flexible regulation to contribute to that aim. Ofcom should therefore be set specific clear and continuing objectives in regard to broadband development, to ensure the success of broadband in Britain and to overcome the troubles that have been experienced with local loop unbundling. That should feature expressly in the policy framework that Ofcom is set annually by the Government. We should also ensure that universal service is specifically protected and extended.
	The Bill will set a framework for the communications industry for the next decade. It should take account of the fact that making broadband available is a huge challenge. We must look ahead. I want to ensure that the Bill covers broadband and its extra use and increasing width, and that we do not have to stick to a limit that is, as it were, bought off the shelf in the marketplace. Future expansion must be covered.
	As I have said, I welcome the Bill and endorse the Government's amendment. I am glad that these provisions will soon be on the statute book, but I am keen to enable the Government to improve the Bill further.

Richard Allan: I too congratulate the Government on conceding the need for a specific reference to high-speed data transfer services. We have spent a good deal of time discussing a specific form of communications—broadcasting—and an inordinate amount of that time talking about one particular broadcaster, the BBC. I expect that we shall return to that subject later, but many of us consider the internet side of the Bill equally if not more important to where we are going with the communications industry.
	Network services continue to become more important. The idea of a dotcom boom followed by a bust, suggesting that the dotcom issue has gone away, is nonsense in the context of what is actually happening to economic growth, and the amount of the economy that now depends on network services in the broadest sense. I believe that the importance of those services to broadcasting will grow over time, and that they deserve a high profile in the Bill.
	The term "high-speed data transfer" is correct, although it will and should change over time. I think it right to leave Ofcom as the organisation on the ground, with contact with the industry and able to decide how "high speed" should be defined at any particular stage. I understand that, according to the legally mandated minimum requirement, telecoms providers should currently provide a line that transfers data at 2.4 kilobytes per second, while BT has a self-imposed minimum of 9.6. That provides us with something that is more or less useless as a universal minimum standard.
	I see no reason not to have realistically high-speed minimum standards, imposed in a way that would allow the industry to deliver. It makes no sense to say that ADSL must be delivered everywhere via BT lines, because the technology simply does not allow that, but it does make sense to have a floor standard enabling investment decisions to provide technology on an even basis, and to enable that floor to be raised over time. I hope that Ofcom will interpret "high-speed data services" in that sense.

John Robertson: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but surely the state of the plant that companies must use would not allow the service for which he asks. Should not the Government invest in the network so that it can be provided?

Richard Allan: There are instances in which specific Government investment is helpful. That has been taken up by regional development agencies, and I consider it an appropriate form of intervention. My colleagues in Cornwall used objective 1 money for a project to make up for the difference between the cost of BT's putting in the standard equipment that it would have put in anywhere else and the upgrade cost in Cornwall. That, I think, makes sense. I am more worried about cases in which Government investment constitutes a substitute, or creates competitors where there is an existing business—disrupts the market, in other words.
	I have mentioned to the Minister concerns raised with me about Scottish Enterprise activity. Providers, including those based in Scotland, argue that the intervention is creating spare capacity where capacity already exists. Our interventions should be carefully targeted. We should recognise that for the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom, the market will provide. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that where it does not provide intervention is appropriate, but intervention should not be in lieu of the market; it should happen in specific cases of market failure.

Andrew Lansley: Can the hon. Gentleman help to clear up a slight confusion? He says that, as the definition of high-speed data transfer services changes over time, Ofcom will be able to do something in relation to it, but I cannot for the life of me work out what precisely Ofcom is supposed to do in relation to those services that, according to its other duties, it will not be doing in relation to other communications services and networks.

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman makes the case that the Minister made in Committee. He refers back to the general duties of Ofcom, whereby it has responsibility for electronic communications in the wider sense. However, it would be helpful to include the additional wording
	"the desirability of encouraging . . . high speed data transfer throughout the United Kingdom"
	as an objective, as proposed. For example, Oftel has had to adjudicate in a dispute about the relative pricing the IPStream and DataStream services provided by BT, which are two ways of offering broadband services. The arguments made by the players in that field, who are all in the private sector, are about the way in which Oftel's adjudication will affect the development of the market. If Ofcom has that explicit objective—that it is desirable that those high-speed data transfer services spread throughout the UK—it can use that in making such adjudications.

Andrew Lansley: Ofcom's responsibility is, as Oftel's has been, to determine access pricing into BT's network, and the gap between the BT retail price and the wholesale price would apply regardless of the availability of that duty. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the requirement that the service be available right across the country, so surely he is talking about a universal service obligation. Is he talking about that, or is he not?

Richard Allan: The amendment proposes something that is short of a universal service obligation but would be a clear objective for Ofcom. The situation is not the same for Oftel. When Ofcom is making an adjudication and dealing with telecom providers such as BT, it will do so on the basis that one of its objectives is the desirability of access throughout the UK. If there is a clear steer from Ofcom, because it has that objective, it will help to shape the investment decisions of all the companies in the sector, but it is not a substitute for those decisions.
	If we all have a common interest in ensuring access to high-speed data services throughout the UK, that additional objective can do no harm. One might argue that it is unnecessary, but to argue that it takes us back is entirely wrong. It could take us forward and it would be helpful to include a specific reference to such access. It does not mean that there is a universal service obligation. That is a separate debate and relates to other clauses that we discussed in Committee.
	The key point to note about the desirability of broadband access provision is that broadband is not just faster narrow band; it allows new forms of functionality. Obviously, additional functions kick in with every speed increase. One can do some things at ADSL, the normal BT broadband speeds, while other things can be done only at faster speeds. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred to video, for example, which will not kick in until a later date. However, as we climb this ladder, new forms of functionality are available on every rung, which are key to the competitiveness of UK industry.
	Competitiveness is the basis for South Korean investment decisions. It stands to reason that businesses that can act more effectively and speedily have a significant competitive advantage over those that are on a slower track.

Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if firms are to diversify and to be able to offer certain services by web, they will have to transmit even still pictures relatively fast? Whether they use a local or a distance server, minimum standards of broadband are required, at least something of the order of 400 kilobytes per second and not the low levels that are currently included in the definition of broadband.

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that different definitions are used. That relates to the target arguments. The Government have a target to increase use and so they are casting the definition as widely as possible. My sense is that all the telecom providers want to give as fast a service as they can—the faster the service, the more they can charge for it—so there is the prospect of, if not universal coverage, fairly high rates of coverage at 512 kilobytes per second, which is a functional rate for moving around large graphics files. That prospect is within reach.
	I hope that the amendment will enable Ofcom to instruct the telecoms on all the issues referred to in other parts of the Bill, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) pointed out. There will be a framework so that the companies know that high-speed data transfer throughout the UK is one of Ofcom's desirable objectives and that that will influence its actions as a regulator. Its decisions will be made through the lens of that provision. That will add something, and I am pleased that there is a specific reference to data transfer, as opposed to broadcasting.

Brian White: I fear that we are in danger of repeating the debate on broadband that we held in the Chamber on 1 May. I am astounded by what I have heard. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) admitted that public interest tests were reasonable, and then the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) agreed that Government intervention in the market was an acceptable way forward, thus turning on its head 20 years of the Tory ideology that the free market will deliver.

John Whittingdale: I should hate the hon. Gentleman go away with the impression that I welcome a public interest test. I made it fairly clear that I was not in favour of the Government's adoption of a public interest test.

Brian White: Some of the other parts of the debate that I found incredible were the references to other countries. The hon. Member for Lichfield talked about South Korea without putting his remarks in the context of that country's economic structure or talking about Government involvement in companies there; for example, the tower blocks are constructed so as to encourage broadband connection. In Germany, the regulator acquiesced in the stifling of competition by Deutsche Telekom. Are the Tories seriously advocating that we should have a national championing of broadband through BT, as some of their comments in the debate suggest? If so, there will be serious problems and we need to address that point.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right to note the intervention of the Government of South Korea, but there has been no such intervention in the Netherlands, in Denmark, in Australia nor, surprisingly, in Portugal. All those countries—in fact, 19 countries—are ahead of Britain in the broadband stakes.

Brian White: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman cited figures from August 2002. If he actually looked at the rate of broadband growth over the past few months, he would see that the UK is at the forefront. He should look at those figures rather than relying on historical, out-of-date figures.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way to me for a second time.
	As I pointed out earlier, the more recent figures are based on definitions of broadband that no other country would accept and that many scientists in this country—including, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman—would never accept. All that has happened is that the definition of broadband has been expanded by the Government to include more services.

Stephen Timms: indicated dissent.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister may say no, but the Minister knows the truth of the matter.

Brian White: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have held several discussions on broadband over the years, but my understanding is that the figures are based on comparable definitions. If I am wrong, I will apologise, but that is my understanding. That is what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other studies have put forward. The hon. Gentleman should look at the definitions again.
	One of my concerns is that although the Lords amendment encouraged competition and markets, the Government amendment does not. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us how Ofcom will deal with the provision? Will it have a duty to encourage the markets? If this is about encouraging an incumbent supplier to do more, that is a very different prospect from allowing entrants into the market and the kind of data-stream and internet protocol competition that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) mentioned earlier.
	These are serious issues. The House is in danger of latching on to the latest fashion. We did so with local loop unbundling; we are in danger of doing so with broadband. I am very concerned that we will create more problems for ourselves if we accept the amendment. At best, it is neutral. At worst, it is the thin end of the wedge. I am concerned that we will not give Ofcom clear instructions that broadband should be delivered by competition and creating markets. That is the only sustainable way to deliver it.

Andrew Lansley: I had feared, before I heard the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) speak, that I would be in a minority of one on this subject. I have to say hesitantly that, not for the first time, he and I see things more closely than perhaps some of members of our pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and, sometimes, even those who served on the Standing Committee.
	Before I enter into the subject matter, I want to join in congratulating and welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) to the Front Bench. Once again, as he did in Committee on many occasions, he has demonstrated the extent and, often, the depth of his knowledge of technological matters.
	I fear that, on this occasion, enthusiasm and knowledge of the technology have diverted some Members from the debate at hand. The debate is not about the desirability or otherwise of further broadband roll-out, or the desirability of functionality at higher speeds and developing new forms of broadband or high-speed data transfer services. All those things are very important and interesting subjects for longer discussions, and they are not least the responsibility of the Government. The question is whether Ofcom should have an additional specific duty, as proposed either by the Lords or by the Government.
	My view is that neither of the amendments is necessary and both may be undesirable. Why is that true? Essentially, the problems that might arise are these: if we accept the Lords amendment and give Ofcom the responsibility to consider what are the best means of gaining access to those systems, we introduce to Ofcom an element of picking technological winners that is not evident elsewhere in the Bill and is completely inappropriate to the responsibilities of an independent regulator. If we include, as the Lords amendments does, the specific reference to encouraging competitive markets in such systems, we have to ask why that is necessary. As Ofcom will have a wider responsibility to encourage competitive markets in all electronic networks and services, why is it necessary to specify that requirement? Doing so will simply cause confusion about the nature of the Bill in other respects. Although well motivated, the Lords amendment is deficient in those two respects.
	Let us move to the Government amendment, which raises the harmful possibility that the Government could give Ofcom a duty about the development, availability and use of high-speed data transfer services that could conflict with its other duties that relate to the promotion of consumer interests through competition. That would be highly undesirable. We want Ofcom's pro-competitive duty to be clear. Even if we wanted to give Ofcom that duty, is Ofcom the right body to exercise it? It is not; the Government should do so.
	Almost everything that I have heard about the desirability of different forms of intervention—we can argue about how much there should be and whether it should simply involve aggregating public sector purchasing, promoting certain technology with grants or developing access in certain areas using subsidy—suggests that those are matters for the Government, not for Ofcom. Ofcom will not have the powers or the resources to do those things.
	The most harmful aspect is that—as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said in response to my intervention—the proposal might be short of a universal service obligation. The idea that we must give Ofcom responsibility short of a universal service obligation in relation to high-speed data transfer will simply allow the Government to say, "We gave Ofcom the duty to promote broadband; it may not have done it well enough." I shall not try to interpret the history too much, but Oftel picked local loop unbundling as the way to try to promote broadband. It subsequently said, "If we aren't going to do it, we'll let BT do it, by cutting prices. That will do it for us." Neither of those approaches represents the simple pro-competitive operations on which Oftel should have focused.
	Oftel's job was not to promote broadband. Oftel's job was to ensure that the markets were competitive. In so far as that involved diminishing the monopoly aspects of BT's operation, that was what Oftel needed to do. Unfortunately, other questions got left on one side, especially those related to spectrum allocation and the availability of alternative technology, because everyone became focused on local loop unbundling.
	The issue now is to define Ofcom's role. Ofcom's role is to provide a competitive market in all electronic communications, networks and services, but if the Government conclude that the economic or social necessity suggests that there should be a universal service in high-speed data transfer services, clause 62 will allow the Government to establish a universal service obligation by order. That is how the Government would need to act. The Government could get off the hook because Ofcom had a subsidiary duty but no power to give effect to it. That could be damaging.

Chris Bryant: I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly missed his grammar. Neither the Lords amendment, nor the Government amendment would give Ofcom a new duty. Surely it would have only to exercise its other duties with regard to the desirability of encouraging the availability and use of high-speed data services.

Andrew Lansley: That is not a matter of grammar; it is a matter of interpretation. In relation to clause 3, yes, furthering the interests of citizens and consumers is subsequently qualified by the things to which Ofcom must have regard. We have to consider the way in which Ofcom exercises those duties. The hon. Gentleman will find that, so long as Ofcom asserts the primacy of its consumer interests, it will also have to show that it is giving effect to the subsidiary aspects of its general duties.
	All those things are Ofcom's general duties. The risk—I put it no higher than that—is that the Ofcom's subsidiary duty in this respect will come into conflict with its primary duties, and we ought not to countenance that. Moreover, many hon. Members are extolling the benefits of broadband roll-out, and they perhaps think something should be provided for the 10 per cent. of the population that will not have access to BT's broadband or cable. However, when they find that it is uneconomic do to so and they come knocking on the door called "universal service obligation" and the Government say, "Oh no, we can't do that, but we have given Ofcom some responsibility", they will find that this debate will ring hollow because it will not have served our purpose at all; it will have inhibited us from going down the path that will probably be necessary in due course.

Robert Smith: I certainly found the last few speeches quite informative about the range of tensions involved in trying to achieve what is best for our constituents, especially in trying to get new technology and broadband into rural areas. The Minister will know, from having met my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and myself recently, just how important such things are in areas such as the north-east of Scotland.
	The great challenge for that area is that its rurality involves a dispersed population. In many parts of north-east Scotland, there is no constraining physical geography that, as in the highlands, forces people into nodes of population that can be tackled by conventional connections. The population is more dispersed, so the attempt to get such technology into the area is even more challenging, yet it should be a very tempting area, given the importance of the oil and gas industry and the amount of data handled by many people who commute to the city of Aberdeen. The benefits of high-speed data links should be apparent, but there is a worry in the community about how to press forward.
	Just lately, the pressure on BT and others seems to have had some effect. For example, the exchange in Drumoak has had its target level reduced to 150 registrations, which is achievable. Another community, Kemnay, already has 300 people signed up, but a target has not been issued. Having listened to the debate, I do not know whether the amendment will improve the situation, but—as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said—the universal service obligation is a long-term aspiration. It is certainly a challenge to reach the last bits of the really rural areas.
	BT lobbied Members of Parliament last week and told us that it could cover 90 per cent. of the country under the conventional rules that affect the market. It felt that it could cover up to 97 per cent. of the country with some tweaking, but in those last exchanges the number of years that would be needed to see a return on BT's investment would need to be changed. Would the amendment affect Ofcom's ability to allow BT to run the market in a way that would allow that last 7 per cent. of exchanges to be enabled?

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman mentioned exchanges, but BT are doing good work by spreading broadband out in the highlands and islands, and other parts of north-west and north-east Scotland, using the low earth orbit satellite constellation system. It does not involve exchanges and it is another way to supply broadband, but it is costly.

Robert Smith: It also has a problem with the return of data and the ability for two-way communication. A company in my constituency is developing satellite systems, and it is another solution for some rural areas. However, if the regulator can be convinced by BT, the ability to provide the conventional solution for more people will mean that they can use the same equipment in their houses to access the network. They can be on the same wavelength as everyone else and make best use of broadband. In another interesting innovation in my constituency, Scottish Hydro-Electric is using power lines to carry broadband.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that BT has argued that the reason it has to have the thresholds is for reasons of competition law. It cannot be seen to be subsidising an exchange because that would be anti-competitive against other suppliers. Will the Bill make it possible for BT to surrender that feeble reason for not rolling out broadband?

Robert Smith: That is what I want to hear from the Minister, when he replies. Will the amendment allow those exchanges that BT argues need a greater rate of return to be enabled? That would be the quickest way to ensure that even more constituents gain access to broadband.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Scottish Hydro-Electric scheme, but that is not a new idea. Companies such as Thus plc have tried to do it in the past. Even British Rail tried it. The problem is that it comes at a cost, and where will the money come from?

Robert Smith: We will find out, because the commercial trials are taking place in my constituency in Stonehaven, where the cost is roughly comparable to that of the BT equipment. It is two-way broadband, and the speed in both directions is the same. One of the greatest complaints that I received at the meeting I held with my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon was what ADSL is not the product that businesses want. They want to be able to send large data files as well as receive them.
	The good news from BT was that our exchanges happen to be made by Fujitsu, so it is possible to use a patch to make them into two-way fast exchanges. However, I want to know whether the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right and the Government have accepted the amendment to get themselves off the hook and removed from any role in driving broadband forward in rural areas. Will the amendment have any effect on the regulator? Will it allow the regulator to adopt a different model in rural areas to ensure that the maximum number of people benefit in the quickest possible time from this new market?

Stephen Timms: I welcome the fact that we have had a lively and interesting debate about broadband—as we often do. I also welcome the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) to the Front Bench. We enjoyed his contribution and look forward to many more, on these topics and others, in the months ahead. He quoted me correctly when he said that I had argued against the inclusion of the term "broadband" in the Bill, but the amendment uses the alternative term "high-speed data services". That is helpful. The data that we use to compare progress on broadband in the UK are compiled on a consistent basis with the way in which data are compiled in Europe and elsewhere. That is one of the arguments in favour of using the definition in the Bill, because it is used elsewhere.
	When I joined the DTI last year, I was greeted by a headline in one of the computing newspapers that claimed that the UK was neck and neck with Croatia on broadband. We have come a long way since then, as the hon. Gentleman will—I am sure—acknowledge. He appeared to suggest at one stage that we might include basic rate ISDN in the broadband figures, and that double rate ISDN was equivalent to broadband. We are not including ISDN basic access in the broadband figures, and indeed there is a fundamental difference in that ISDN is not always on, as broadband is. That is a significant benefit of broadband.

Michael Fabricant: Double ISDN is in the order of 112 kilobytes per second—

Robert Smith: It is 128.

Michael Fabricant: Yes, that is right. That rate is included in the broadband definition, and that is the point that I was making. The Minister is right to say that ISDN is not always on and has to be dialled up, but that bandwidth is not fast and cannot be used for the projection of graphic images. Therefore, that speed does not fit the definition of broadband and it should not be included.

Stephen Timms: It can be used, but it is slower. We are looking for consistency, to allow us to make comparisons with other countries, as the current definition allows. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) was right to emphasise the importance of the roll-out of broadband across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) was also right to draw the House's attention to the importance of aggregating the public sector demand—not through subsidy, but with the public sector as a customer for broadband—to increase the level of demand, including in rural areas, to allow the service to be rolled out there.
	We are making rapid progress. I have established a rural broadband team in the DTI, which works closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality. I am confident that the rapid rate of progress that we have seen lately will continue. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) about the importance of the internet. One does sometimes hear ill-informed comments about boom and bust, suggesting that the importance of the internet has waned. He is right to remind the House that that is not the case. We see greater realism in people's approach to the internet, but it will still be extremely important in the future. I also agree about the dangers of distortion of the market through inappropriate subsidies, which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) speaks with great authority on these matters, and did so again this evening. He and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) spoke of some possible unhelpful approaches to the issue. It is fair enough to question whether the amendment adds much to the Bill, but I do not agree that it is potentially damaging. I suggest that if they look at clause 3, they will see that subsection (2)(b) already refers to
	"the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of electronic communications services".
	Subsection (3)(e) refers to
	"the desirability of encouraging investment and innovation in relevant markets".
	What the amendment will do is impose a duty on Ofcom to have regard to the desirability of encouraging broadband in exercising its functions, which will require it to take other decisions, such as the setting of general conditions with which communications providers must comply, in a way that would be more likely than not to encourage broadband. The hon. Gentlemen's misgivings about potential downsides should therefore not cause them concern. The provision will, of course, sit alongside all the existing requirements, including that in subsection (3) about the desirability of promoting competition in relevant markets.

Andrew Lansley: How confident is the Minister, therefore, that were Ofcom to set its general conditions in ways that were designed around that objective, as distinct from those that are provided for in the EU directives, that setting of general conditions would not become subject to legal challenge?

Stephen Timms: I do not think that Ofcom will do that in isolation. It will have regard to all those matters that are required of it, including those, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that have been derived directly from the directives. Perhaps I ought to agree, too, that this is entirely separate from the universal service obligation process, which, as he says, comes from another part of the Bill. It is important not to confuse those two.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 5

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 38, 43, 47 to 54, 147, 194, 196, 198 and 205.

Tessa Jowell: Lords amendment No. 5 amends clause 3(3), which sets out a number of matters to which Ofcom must have regard, in particular, in performing its duties under clause 3(1). The amendment adds the purposes of public service television broadcasting to those matters. Those purposes are detailed in clause 260(4) of the Bill.
	The Government listened to the strength of argument in another place that the position of public service broadcasting, to which we are fully committed, within Ofcom's general duties should be secured. This amendment does that. I should explain that the reference is to the purposes of public service television broadcasting because that is provided for and defined in the Bill. Public service radio broadcasting, which is not mentioned in the Bill, is provided by the BBC and is secured through the BBC charter and agreement. Amendments Nos. 43, 54 and 198 simply tidy up related parts of the Bill. Amendment No. 198 provides for the construction of the
	"purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom"
	in the Bill, allowing the ad hoc definitions in clauses 226 and 266 to be removed. Amendment No. 33, coupled with the new definition of
	"the BBC Charter and Agreement"
	in amendment No. 147, enables the BBC charter to confer functions on Ofcom to the same extent as the BBC agreement.
	Amendments Nos. 34 to 38, 52, 194, 196 and 205 are consequential and ensure that the policy is applied consistently throughout the Bill. Having reflected further on the arguments put forward by the Opposition on this issue in the House, and again in another place, the Government felt able to accept the principle that it would be right to keep open the possibility of Ofcom's regulatory functions in respect of the BBC—other than those contained in the Bill—being placed in the BBC charter and not solely in the BBC agreement, as the Bill originally provided. Amendments Nos. 47 to 53 add detail to the definition of public service broadcasting in clause 260. The areas to which changes are made are educational programmes, programmes facilitating civic understanding, programmes dealing with religion and other beliefs, and children's and young people's television and drama. I will now set out briefly what each of those changes will achieve.
	Amendment No. 47 requires broadcasters to provide comprehensive and authoritative coverage of news and current affairs to facilitate civic understanding, in addition to the requirement that such programmes should facilitate fair and well-informed debate on news and current affairs. This amendment has been made following intense discussion in another place of the importance of broadcasters facilitating understanding of democratic and civic processes, such as proceedings in Parliament.
	Amendment No. 48 expands the requirement for broadcasters to provide programmes on educational matters to include
	"programmes of an educational nature and . . . other programmes of educative value".
	This change was introduced to reflect more accurately the Department's policy on this issue, again following concerns both in this House and in another place. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the programming covered in clause 260(6)(e) should extend to programmes whose purpose is to educate and which have educational value.
	Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 53 relate to programmes dealing with religion in the public service remit. Two broad changes have been made to this provision. The first, in amendment No. 49, expands the reference to religion in the matters listed in subsection (6) to "religion and other beliefs". Amendment No. 53 defines "belief" to include collective belief in or adherence to ethical systems or philosophies or mystical or transcendental doctrines. The second change, in amendment No. 50, makes it clear that the reference to religion within the remit encompasses both factual programmes about religion—such as news, information or the history of different religions and other beliefs—and programmes of a religious nature, including those portraying acts of worship and other ceremonies and practices. Amendment No. 53 also defines the term "drama", in response to concerns raised in another place. The definition makes it clear that the term "drama" as used in clause 260(6)(b) includes contemporary and other drama in a variety of different formats. We consider that this new provision encompasses new ideas and new writing, as well as the wide range of formats of television drama.
	Amendment No. 51 expands the requirement for programming for children and young people from
	"a suitable quantity of high quality and original programmes"
	to
	"a suitable quantity and range"
	of such programmes. Despite the unique status of the provision for children's programming in the public service remit, since it specifies that programming should be both high-quality and original, we accepted that additional safeguards should be made to protect programming for young people. This amendment therefore ensures that a suitable quantity and range of programmes for children and young people will be provided. I commend the amendments to the House.

John Whittingdale: I might have given the impression during earlier proceedings on the Bill that I wish to speak at considerable length whenever the BBC is mentioned. Indeed, that was the impression given by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who has now left the Chamber. However, I do not propose to speak at length this evening.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to arguments suggesting that the charter should be allowed to incorporate future developments that might lead to Ofcom taking additional responsibilities for the BBC, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) suggested in Committee. The Secretary of State knows that one of our principal complaints about the Bill is the fact that the biggest broadcaster in the country is excluded from Ofcom's full regulatory remit. We continue to believe that that is wrong and that it should be corrected in the future. The Government have argued that it would be suitable for the issue to be considered at the time of charter renewal. The amendment is helpful because if the Government decide to extend Ofcom's role to oversee the BBC's activities, the Bill will facilitate that.
	Given that everything is wrapped up in the renewal of the BBC's charter, is the Secretary of State able to say more about precisely how that will be undertaken and, especially, about how her Department intends to review the charter's current operation before conclusions are reached about future changes? She knows that we have strong feelings about that. She said in public that there will be a far-reaching review but she has given few details about how it will be carried out.
	It is an appropriate time to welcome strongly the Government's agreement in the House of Lords that the BBC should be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office. We argued strongly for that and although we have not achieved 100 per cent. of what we wanted, at least the door of the BBC has been opened to the NAO for the first time. That is in the BBC's interests and certainly in those of the taxpayer, so we have achieved a vastly improved situation.

Andrew Lansley: I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), welcome the Government's acceptance that when the BBC charter is renewed, it might be appropriate for Ofcom to be given functions that would be best specified in the charter rather than in the agreement and the licence. Indeed, the amendments head off at the pass a risk that might have otherwise arisen because subsequent to charter renewal, the BBC governors could have been invited under the agreement to accept Ofcom's responsibilities and functions yet wish, or think that they had a duty, to resist that due to the framing of the agreement. If Parliament wants Ofcom to have responsibilities, it may advise Ministers and they can decide that such responsibilities should be reflected directly in the charter. I welcome that because I argued for it in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) earlier chided parliamentary counsel for their lack of imagination about the word "citizen". One must recognise that parliamentary counsel occasionally must go above and beyond the call of duty—defining beliefs in legislation is certainly beyond the call of duty. I hope that the definition is not tested too much in the courts.

Tessa Jowell: I shall respond briefly to the points that have been made. I expect that we shall publish proposals on how we intend to approach the charter review before Christmas. The process will be wide-ranging and thorough and I hope that it will provide an opportunity for wide-ranging debate so that the public and all those with an interest in the BBC's future may express their view.

Andrew Lansley: I neglected to mention a point to which the Secretary of State might wish to respond. The Bill suggests that Ofcom will undertake its first review of public service broadcasting probably during the latter part of next year. How does she think that the review will relate to consultation on the BBC charter? Could we reasonably expect that formal consultation on the charter would follow Ofcom's first such review?

Tessa Jowell: It is important to distinguish between the formal and informal process. Of course, a formal process will allow parliamentary scrutiny of early proposals on the charter. The Bill provides for the review of public service broadcasting to be held within a time scale that allows it to inform the charter review process, which is what we intend. We need to get the sequence right, so I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we intend to announce the way in which we aim to approach the process before the end of the year. The first stage is to secure legislation to enable Ofcom to undertake the wide-ranging review of public service broadcasting at an appropriate time. As I said, the review will be an important source of information that may be fed into the charter review process. I promise the House that there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss the methodology and approach of the charter review in addition to the content of the review itself.
	I pay tribute to Lord Sharman for his deft and skilful negotiations in another place. The solution that found considerable favour in another place to the vexed question of NAO access to the BBC accounts has taken us to a good position to which we will return at the time of charter review. I have made that position clear throughout the process.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10 agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 11

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 18, Lords amendment No. 42, and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 72 and consequential amendments (a) to (e), and Lords amendments Nos. 73 to 93, 119 to 126 and 206.

Tessa Jowell: The amendments, although not directly related, have been grouped together because they deal with a wide range of disability, equal opportunity and training issues. They include placing a new duty on Ofcom to promote equipment that is convenient for use by the widest practical range of users, including people with disabilities. Ofcom will also be required to establish and maintain a committee to advise on the interests of disabled people and of elderly people across its remit.
	The reference to the "fair treatment" of disabled people has been replaced with a reference to "equalisation of opportunities", which is the preferred term in recent disability legislation. Lords amendment No. 42 was introduced to require Ofcom to include conditions in the public Teletext licence to ensure that people with sight and/or hearing disabilities can use the service for all the same purposes as people without such disabilities. Though we agree with the spirit of the amendment, we had to address some technical difficulties with the drafting and the placement of the amendment. So we drafted a new amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 42, which will be inserted in the correct place.
	Lords amendment No. 72 requires Ofcom's code on provisions for the deaf and visually impaired to give guidance on the extent to which applicable services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people with a dual sensory impairment. Amendments (a) to (e) are minor consequential amendments. They provide that consultation on the code, and accessibility to it, applies to people who have a dual sensory impairment.
	Ofcom will have a duty to include in its code on access to television for people with sensory impairments a requirement that broadcasters make adequate information about the assistance that is available to those who are likely to want to make use of it. In addition, a fixed five-year interim target of 60 per cent. for subtitling has been introduced to ensure that progress towards meeting the main target by the 10th anniversary is accelerated in the early years, with the Secretary of State able to set, by order, a more challenging target where appropriate.
	Amendments have been tabled to close a loophole that related to the provision for thresholds in clause 330, below which the requirements for equal opportunities and training would not apply.

John Whittingdale: We spent considerable time in this House and the other place ensuring that the Bill properly caters for the needs of those with hearing or sight disabilities. The Opposition pressed that on a number of different occasions and it is gratifying to find, once again, that one of the things of which we were keen to persuade the Government has been taken up in a Lords amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked in Committee for a new clause to give a duty to promote inclusive design. That has resurfaced in a similar form to encourage the wide availability of accessible, easy-to-use equipment. The issue is important. The disability groups feel strongly that the measure is necessary. I am all in favour of giving Ofcom the duty to encourage equipment to be as accessible as possible to people who are deaf or visually impaired and, equally, to ensure that their needs are properly taken into account by the establishment of the panel.
	I have a couple of slight concerns. There is always a balance to be struck between ensuring that the broadcasters pay due heed to the needs of people with disabilities while not loading them with too great a burden. There is a requirement that all cable and satellite channels subtitle 80 per cent. of their programmes within 10 years of the legislation coming into force. That target was agreed in discussions with the industry and the disability groups. All the broadcasters have signed up to it.
	The Government have gone further, however, by imposing a new interim target of 60 per cent. subtitling for all programming after five years. That front loads the demand on the broadcaster to move towards greater subtitling so that they have to achieve more than 50 per cent. of the target within five years rather than 10. The full target of 80 per cent. subtitling could cost nearly £900,000 per channel annually. I am not going to disagree with the amendment, but I hope that the Government will bear in mind that the target is demanding and will have considerable cost implications. For many broadcasters, £900,000 is an easily affordable sum, but small struggling niche channels will find it hard to meet that cost.
	I am also concerned that amendment No. 88 provides that if a channel has voluntarily fulfilled its 60 per cent. interim subtitling requirement before the five-year deadline, the interim requirement can be increased by the Secretary of State. That would give those who have acted in a thoroughly commendable fashion by reaching their target early an even more demanding target to meet on top. That could act as a disincentive to channels to reach the target of 60 per cent. before the five years have expired. Apart from those points, however, I do not disagree with the amendments.

John Robertson: I want the Secretary of State to assure me that the needs of disabled persons working in the telecommunications industry will be addressed. The Bill mentions broadcasters, but does not mention telecommunications. I raised that in Committee. When Lord Gordon tried to amend the Bill, he said:
	"If the object of this Bill is to bring together telecommunications and broadcasting, it seems a little lopsided, to say the least, that the training provision applies solely to broadcasting."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 2003; Vol. 650, c. 396.]
	I ask the Secretary of State to consider that.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is right: we are front loading the cost of subtitling. I hope that I have made clear our reasons for that. Other hon. Members on both sides of the House and in another place have certainly made the reasons clear. The cost of subtitling is decreasing all the time. That is why we have acted as we have. It is also worth noting that Ofcom has the power to exempt services, taking into account the cost if that is properly justified.
	In response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), the Government are constrained by legislation. I remind him that last week we published the White Paper on skills, the focus of which is to ensure not only that our industries maximise productivity through a trained and skilled work force, but that we draw from the widest range of people across the community in developing access to skills and training. I attended an event earlier today at which Barbara Cassani, the chair of the London Olympic bid committee, forcefully made the point that diversity in recruiting for the Olympics is important because in that way we recruit the best. The same applies to telecoms and broadcasters in recruiting from the range of talent, which obviously also includes people with disabilities.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.
	It being half-past Seven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 38 agreed to.

Clause 199
	 — 
	Borrowing Limit for C4C

Lords amendment: No.39.

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 40, 41, 146, 195, 197, 199, 201, 202, 204, 207 to 214, 224, 225, 227 to 230, 264, 265, 274, 276 and 277.

Stephen Timms: The amendments are not related, but they are all technical. Lords amendment No. 39 clarifies that the power to set a borrowing limit for the Channel 4 Corporation is exercisable by order by adding the words "by order" to subsection (1) of clause 199. A number of drafting and minor amendments of various kinds follow.
	Lords amendment No. 195 corrects the drafting of clause 386(2)(f) so that it uses the term
	"an international obligation of the United Kingdom",
	which is defined in clause 398, instead of simply referring to "an international obligation", which is not. Lords amendment No. 199 corrects an error in clause 398.
	The Bill provides for television multiplex services or general multiplex services to carry digital radio services. Consequential amendments were necessary to ensure that the penalties for contraventions relating to digital radio programme services take that into account. Some of the provisions necessary to achieve that were already in the Bill, but other such amendments needed to be made. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 207 to 214, 224, 225, 227 to 230 and 274. They also make some minor corrections to related amendments to schedules 13 and 15.
	Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 are designed to clarify the effect of certain transitional provisions relating to newspaper mergers set out in schedule 18. Lords amendment No. 264 ensures that the powers to make orders containing transitional and consequential amendments set out in subsections (2) and (3) of section 276 and section 277 of the Enterprise Act 2002 apply to transfers of newspapers or newspaper assets that take place prior to the newspaper merger provisions in the Bill coming into force. Lords amendment No. 265 clarifies that clause 395 does not apply to the order-making power under section 91(6)(a) of the Enterprise Act. That order-making power remains governed by the general provisions that apply to order-making powers in part 3 of that Act—in section 124.
	Lords amendment No. 276 corrects a minor drafting error in the repeal schedule. It is consequent on an amendment made on Report and reinstates an omitted conjunction. Lords amendment No. 277 makes a minor amendment to the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 to amend the definition of "programme services" used in that Act to take account of changes introduced by the Bill to the provisions on which that definition relies.
	Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are drafting amendments that replace the references to television broadcasting services in clause 202(4) with references to television programme services. That aligns subsection (4) with the remainder of the clause. Lords amendment No. 146 is a minor amendment to correct a drafting error. Lords amendment No. 199 aligns the definition of consumers in clause 398 with the definition of customers in the clause by inserting the words "or in connection with" in subsection (5)(a). Lords amendment No. 197 corrects an error in clause 396(6). The change in wording will require Ofcom to allow a period of not less than one month for representations to be made on any proposal by it to make an order or regulations.
	Lords amendment No. 201 is a minor drafting correction. Lords amendment No. 202 has been drafted to allow any order under clause 403 bringing provisions of the Bill into force to make transitional or transitory provisions in that connection. That will give greater flexibility to ensure a smooth transition from the existing law to the new legal regime in the Bill. Lords amendment No. 204 is also a minor amendment that makes specific provision for Scottish partnerships in relation to the contempt of court provisions in schedule 11. I commend the amendments to the House.

Michael Fabricant: As the Minister has said, these are on the whole minor amendments that merely restructure the Bill to make it more readable and legal. However, it is interesting to note that when the Bill was considered in this House, we were told, in effect, that it was perfect. Every time the Opposition tabled amendments to try to make the Bill more appropriate or legally viable, we were told that they were not necessary. I am therefore pleased that the Minister has accepted that, like so many Bills that Governments of all parties introduce, this perfect Bill required amendment.
	I wanted particularly to ask the Minister a question about Lords amendment No. 39. It is a simple but interesting amendment, as it amends clause 199 by inserting "by order". Clause 199 is not so short. As the Minister said, it deals with the borrowing limits for C4C. Does the provision apply only to C4C, or does it apply also to S4C, and is a similar amendment necessary as a result? Both channels operate within a similar structure, as they are owned by the former Independent Broadcasting Authority, which is now the Independent Television Commission.
	As the Minister said, the order refers to the limit on borrowing. Subsection (2) refers to the sum that the outstanding borrowing must not at any time exceed, but does it also provide for any regulation of the interest rates payable by C4C? Is there any obligation on C4C to seek alternative sources of funding to ensure that the moneys are not borrowed at a rate that it would be difficult for C4C to repay without damaging programming? Finally, will the Minister explain precisely where at present C4C receives its funding from when it borrows as opposed to the funding that it receives from advertising revenue?

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend explain why he has not drawn attention to subsection (6), which requires that the Treasury's consent is required for an order to be made under this part of the Bill? Can he conceive of any circumstances in which any Secretary of State could make an order without the Treasury knowing and giving its consent? Does he know of any other occasion where it is necessary to make this provision? After all, it is one of those open secrets that the House knows but to which it does not usually refer.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has raised an interesting and important point. I am tempted to speculate whether it is the power of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that has managed to produce subsection (6), which provides specifically that the Treasury's consent is required for the making of the order. The question needs to be addressed by the Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman have any explanation for why "order" is referred in subsection (2) but not in subsection (1), except by the amendment that is before us? Is this merely a correction, or is there a subplot, as alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)?
	These are important questions that need to be answered. In future years, when we deal with other issues that arise from our consideration of Bills, will the Minister accept that Bills are not always perfect in their drafting, and that sometimes the Opposition will come up with proposals that perhaps the Minister could accept rather than us having to wait until this late stage of consideration for his acceptance?

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to Lords amendment No. 39 and clause 199, and for the searching questions that he has raised about the contents of the clause. We never said in Committee that the Bill was perfect. We said that it was a good Bill, but he will recall, as a member of the Committee, that there were several occasions in Committee when we accepted amendments tabled by his hon. Friends. We certainly never claimed that the Bill was without flaw.
	I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is not any subplot as he feared. The reason for the amendment is to add to subsection (1) at the end "by order", so that that leads on to the references to the order in subsection (2). The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) asked about the requirement for the Treasury to give its consent. That is a common feature of many pieces of legislation, including those for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible in the past. The requirement in the Bill is not an innovation.
	The House can be reassured that this is an unexceptional amendment. It is designed to clarify—perhaps slightly to correct—the form of words in the Bill.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 42 disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 43 agreed to.

Clause 245
	 — 
	Services that are not Radio Licensable Content Services

Lords amendment: No. 44.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 45, 46, 55, 69 to 71, 94 to 114, 128, 129, 132 to 145, 149, 150, 216 to 218, 221, 222 and 269 to 271.

Tessa Jowell: These amendments deal with diverse broadcasting regulatory provisions. They make changes to the provisions on electronic programme guides, amendments Nos. 44, 45, 94 to 97 and 150; the renewal of radio multiplex licences, No. 46; must-provide services, No. 55; regional programming, Nos. 69 to 71; radio localness, Nos. 98 to 113, 136 and 140; broadcasting competition, No. 114; advertising agencies, Nos. 128 and 129, 269 and 271; change of control, Nos. 132 to 135, 137 and 138, 216 to 218 and 221; meaning of control, Nos. 139, 222 and 270; and access radio, which we intend to refer to as community radio, Nos. 141 to 145; and a minor drafting error, No. 149.
	I do not expect that these amendments will prove controversial, and I am happy to commend them to the House. However, I would be happy to go through them in more detail if hon. Members so wished.

John Whittingdale: A considerable array of different issues seems to be grouped together, but there seems to be a familiar theme. Many of the amendments relate to issues that in the past we promoted at considerable length, but at the time we failed to persuade the Government of their merits. Now they reappear on the amendment paper from another place in the form of amendments that seek to make precisely the changes that we were advocating originally.
	A matter of huge importance to the radio industry is the definition of localness when it comes to radio stations. The Secretary of State will recall that we spent some time in Committee considering the issue. We also had a quite lengthy debate on Report, during which we argued strongly that what mattered to people in identifying with their local station was what it broadcast, the fact that the content of programmes should be local and that the way in which localness is defined when it comes to examining individual local radio stations is the content broadcast. A number of the other requirements that were originally within the Bill—the employment of local people and stations' headquarters being located within the community—seemed to us not to be appropriate for regulation by Government and had little bearing to most people on whether they regarded their station as local. We made those points quite strongly, and we were supported by the radio companies, but without success. It appears that the Government have seen the light, and that is something that we welcome strongly.
	Another issue that we spent quite a lot of time debating in Committee was the meaning of control, which has cropped up today as Lords amendment No. 139. We have been pressing the substance of that amendment for some time, as we have always thought that a simple inflexible 20 per cent. shareholding threshold was not an accurate reflection of the ability to control, and may well catch shareholdings that do not confer the means to control or significantly influence another company. We therefore argued that it was wrong that the provisions placed the burden of rebutting the assumption on the shareholder. I am delighted that the Government now agree with us, and have deleted the relevant provisions. It is worth reflecting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, that the Government, when forced to examine an argument in the House of Lords, where the arithmetic is rather different from the arithmetic in the Commons, suddenly accept it and agree to make a change. We sometimes get the feeling that because the Government are guaranteed a majority in the Commons they do not give the same consideration to the same arguments when they are advanced here. Nevertheless, we are always happy when our argument prevails.

Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that in Committee the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was willing to accept the Opposition's amendments but rebutted mine, which has now become Lords amendment No. 95? May I welcome the Government's conversion on electronic programme guides?

John Whittingdale: It has been suggested to me that the obvious lesson to be drawn from that is that the hon. Gentleman should come and join us. If he did so, he might have more success, so I extend an invitation to him, although without great expectation of it being accepted. While we were disappointed that we were unsuccessful when these matters were first debated, nevertheless it is welcome that the Government have accepted a number of points that we made and introduced amendments that we support.
	Another issue that we raised on several occasions in Committee is dealt with in Lords amendment No. 114, a sensible provision that will help to enhance transparency in the regulatory process in this area, which is a good thing. I should like to say a few words about clause 310, which is amended by Lords amendment No. 114. We have tried to convince the Government that a problem has arisen because broadcasters who are subjected to economic regulation by Ofcom through their licences for reasons other than a competition purpose, for example under various clause 3 duties, will not have a right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. In another place, the Government have gone some way towards recognising that in practice, at least in the case of the duty to promote the interests of citizens and consumers in relevant markets, any economic regulation relating to pricing and packaging under that duty will be appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We are grateful for that welcome statement from the Government.
	There are still other clause 3 duties under which economic regulation could take place for reasons other than a competition purpose. The Government have still not said that a right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal exists. The fact that they have not said so remains a source of some concern. It should be the case that any regulation of the pricing and packaging of broadcasting services—not the content of those services—under any clause 3 duty is clearly appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We will obviously want to keep a keen eye on that when Ofcom assumes responsibility for those matters, particularly the way in which it decides to proceed on economic regulation. If the Secretary of State could say anything more about that, that would be very welcome.

John Robertson: I pay tribute to the Government for agreeing to incorporate in the Bill Lords amendments Nos. 98 and 99, which reflect concerns expressed by the music industry about the impacts of consolidation in commercial radio. I hate to agree with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) but I too believe that throughout our proceedings, Members on both sides of the House voiced their opinion and all felt that the music industry was hard done-by. However, the Government have given careful consideration to the matter and ensured that the concerns of listeners are taken into account. In short, we can retain choice and diversity on our airwaves. We should all agree that these amendments represent important safeguards for the British music industry and that our songwriters and composers have been protected in this legislation.
	It is very pleasing that proposed new section 106ZA of the Broadcasting Act 1990 refers to
	"Consultation about change of character of local services".
	That ensures that the various stakeholders are able to contribute to the process, should they wish to do so. However, I should like to pose three specific questions to the Minister about the provision. First, I would like to clear up any greyness that may result from the change that Lords amendment No. 98 makes to clause 306, and the insertion of new section 106ZA in the Broadcasting Act by Lords amendment No. 99. Lords Amendment No. 99 specifies the grounds on which Ofcom can consent to a departure from the licence as mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1A) of section 106 of the Broadcasting Act. Can the Minister confirm that that does not narrow Ofcom's remit and obligations, and that proposed new subsection (1B) of clause 306, which states that Ofcom must have regard to the character of a service, particularly
	"the selection of spoken material and music in programmes"
	will still be taken into account in relation to a licensee's departures in subsection 1A, and that the music provisions are not excluded by Ofcom because of the scope of the amendments? Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?
	Secondly, subsection (4) of proposed new section 106ZA specifies that Ofcom is not required to publish a notice under that section if it considers that the publication would result in a delay that would be
	"likely prejudicially to affect the interests of the licence holder".
	Would the Minister give some examples of considerations that would be judged to affect the interests of the licence holder in that way and would prevent the public and other stakeholders from being told of a proposed format change, let alone given the opportunity to express their response? Finally, can the Minister provide an assurance that the music industry will be consulted by Ofcom before guidance on consultation is released into the public domain? Given the high profile of issues relating to local radio services both in Parliament and beyond, I trust that the regulator will take seriously its responsibilities relating to music output on radio.
	I have said on many occasions that music is the single most important influence on people's lives. People have different and diverse tastes, and I am made conscious of that every day. My researcher is always berating me because I like Eric Clapton, Huey Lewis and Garth Brooks, while I find it difficult to enjoy her taste in the Smiths and Nirvana, although we agree about REM. However, no matter what our taste, music continues to mould, simulate and entertain, which is why it is important to preserve diversity on the radio. Could the Minister put my fears to rest once and for all and tell the House that Ofcom will ensure that music on the radio will be protected?

Tessa Jowell: I thank hon. Members for their contributions about these specific and detailed changes. May I tell the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that he cannot have it both ways? He complained rather grudgingly that a number of amendments have been adopted, thereby improving the Bill. However, that is part of an extremely constructive parliamentary process that has extended over a fair period of time. I hope that he will see that in an area of such national importance as the shape of our media and communications industry, the Government have taken seriously the responsibility to do whatever they can to build a consensus reflecting shared views where they can be established in Parliament, and across the industry. I have said on a number of occasions that I cannot recall a piece of legislation on which there has been such wide and lengthy consultation as on the Bill. The fact that there is such a high level of agreement between the Government and the Opposition and between the House of Commons and another place is the result of that investment and that consultation, and we should be proud of it.

Michael Fabricant: No one doubts the amount of consultation that has taken place, but we find it odd that when the Opposition offered helpful suggestions to amend the Bill, they were rejected outright in Committee, yet those same amendments were accepted in another place and are being accepted today. Could not considerable time have been saved, had they only been accepted in the first place?

Tessa Jowell: Let me go back to the earlier discussion of the proposal to insert a provision to further the interests of citizens among the general duties of Ofcom. I proudly acknowledged that after listening to the debate in Standing Committee, we were persuaded that greater clarity was necessary. However, as has been made clear by the Government and by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) from his experience, inserting the word "citizen" at that stage was deemed not to be possible by parliamentary counsel. Once the matter had been voted on in another place, the more arcane conventions of parliamentary counsel allowed us to adopt the term without its previous narrow meaning relating to nationality, which had obstructed our wish earlier. That is an example of good engagement in the Standing Committee and an eventual solution being found as a result of the amendment passed in another place.
	Hon. Members should remember that those outside who feed the Opposition with their briefing, ideas and proposals are free with their advice to Members in all parts of the House, so we receive the same ideas, briefing and argument. Those have been fairly reflected in the Bill as it now stands. The changes that have been made in respect of localness and local radio are a good example. The amendments under discussion were tabled in response to the radio industry's concern about the application of the "localness" clause. Hon. Members will recall that in the draft Bill, the plurality floor in relation to local radio was originally set at three plus one. In consultation with the industry, the Government accepted the case that was being made and amended that to two plus one. Let us have no more criticism. That is the process whereby good legislation is developed, and we can all take due credit.
	I shall say a little more about the application of the "localness" clause. There was a concern that the Government's original proposals were over-prescriptive. In the amendments we have provided clarification, which has been welcomed by the industry. For example, the amendments make it clear that not all services need to include local material, and that a suitable proportion of local material must be locally made. The reference to a code is replaced by reference to guidance provided by Ofcom. Once again, the Government listened to the arguments from the industry and acted to reflect the balance between the ambition to deregulate where possible, and the need to protect the public interest because of the unique importance of media in our democracy.
	The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford asked why we had amended the definition of control. The relevant provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 deal with merger control, whereas the Broadcasting Act provisions safeguard plurality. There is no necessary reason why the definitions of control should be wholly identical.
	The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises in amendment No. 114 with regard to broadcasting competition has been a hoary chestnut throughout the parliamentary stages of the Bill. I shall not replay the lengthy debate that took place in Committee. The issue has been debated in both the House and another place, and reflects the concerns expressed, notably by Sky in relation to the packaging of its channel. That broadcaster sought to reduce Ofcom's ability to consider the interests of citizens or consumers in respect of matters that could have an impact on its business.
	Along with the important economic and competition issues, Ofcom must be able to balance the wider public and consumer issues. The need to get that balance right exercised the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, as it has hon. Members in the House and in another place. The process has produced a Bill that represents a proper balance, and we should not re-open consideration of such fundamental questions, given the specific concerns of one broadcaster, which I have had the opportunity to discuss with that broadcaster. In view of the many procedural and other safeguards in the Bill, I believe that those concerns are unfounded.
	I shall deal with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) about the importance of music, whose protection and promotion we have sought to achieve. Amendment No. 99 would mean that Ofcom did not have to consult on a request for a departure from the character of a service where the departure would not substantially alter the service's character. However, if the departure would substantially alter the character of the service, Ofcom would have to consult on the proposed departure before it could agree to it.

John Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend tell me who makes that decision?

Tessa Jowell: That decision will be made by Ofcom. In considering such matters, Ofcom must have regard to factors including the effect of the change in the selection of spoken material and music.
	That is one very specific area in which the position of music is safeguarded. That has again been a matter of some considerable debate and interest during the Bill's passage. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and the House about the strength of the safeguards to secure music as part of the wide range of broadcasting genres, whether on television, on radio, and particularly where his interests lie, in relation to local radio.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 55 agreed to.

Clause 276
	 — 
	Appointed News Providers for Channel 3

Lords amendment: No. 56, in page 249, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 68, 131, 148, 188, 190, 193, 203, 219, 263, 267 and 275.

Tessa Jowell: We have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in debates in both Houses about the subject of the Channel 3 news provider. The amendments are our response to that debate. They will lift most of the ownership restrictions on the Channel 3 nominated news provider and remove the Ofcom nomination process for that body. That will mean that ITV can own its own news provider, but must still function as a single body corporate in order to maintain the desirable level of independence.
	The remaining ownership restrictions are intended to ensure that a body that could not hold the Channel 3 licence or have a substantial interest in the holder cannot provide the news service. So the main restrictions are as follows: any body banned from owning a Channel 3 licence under part II of schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1990—for instance, that includes political bodies—will be similarly restricted from being or having an interest in the Channel 3 news provider; and any body, such as a major newspaper, that is prevented from owning a Channel 3 licence is also prevented from owning its news provider and restricted in the interests it can hold in the news provider.
	The quality provisions remain in place and require that Channel 3 national news continues to be able to compete with other national news services. They also provide for Ofcom to approve the appointed news provider contract to ensure that it is adequately funded. In order for Ofcom to guarantee that the required arrangements are in place and work effectively, the amendments ensure that Ofcom can obtain the information it needs from ITV or the appointed news provider. If Channel 5's audience share becomes broadly equivalent to that of Channel 3, it will be possible to create a Channel 5 scheme comparable to the appointed news provider scheme for Channel 3. We will be able to modify by order the quality and ownership provisions of the Channel 3 system and any Channel 5 scheme.
	I commend the amendment to the House.

John Whittingdale: In debating the previous group of amendments, I suggested that we might have saved some time if the Government had listened in Committee, rather than resisted our ideas before going to the House of Lords and conceding those points. In reply, the Secretary of State said "Let's not have any more of that", but if ever there is going to be any more of that, it will be in relation to the group of amendments that we are now considering.
	The amendments introduce the most important change that the Opposition have managed to achieve in relation to the Bill, and it will undoubtedly benefit ITN and ITV. It is worth reflecting on the history of this matter. The nominated news provider system and the cap on ownership were established back in 1990. Such an arrangement was arguably right at that time, but over the past 14 years, it has become a handicap to ITN.

Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the arguments for nominated news providers came from ITN itself, which advocated the system as one or two people in the company thought that they could make some fast money?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is right: the arguments came from ITN and they were put forcefully to the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who was persuaded by them. However, the world has now moved on. ITN certainly no longer believes that that system is good for it, and neither, indeed, does the Conservative party. I suppose that we have all seen the light.
	The effect of the nominated news provider system has been to reduce the revenue for ITN by a very large amount. The ITV news contract price back in 1993 was about £70 million in today's prices. Some 10 years later, the price had halved. The result is obviously that the amount of resources available to ITN has been drastically reduced, which has meant that it has not been able to invest in its business to the extent that it needs to invest in order to provide a news service that is competitive with those offered by the other major news providers. It has been suggested that Sky News was the beneficiary, as it was able to bid against ITN for the ITV contract and was likely to benefit whatever the outcome, as it could either have beaten ITN and got the contract, or not beaten it, but, in bidding, forced down the price that ITN was able to charge and weakened it as a competitor.
	In our view, it is terribly important that there should be three powerful television news providers. There is no question but that the BBC has always been such a provider. Sky News has now established itself very successfully as an extremely robust and reliable news provider. While continuing to do a good job, ITN has nevertheless suffered from lack of investment caused not only by the nominated news provider system, but by the ownership cap. Currently, there are five shareholders, each of which holds a 20 per cent. stake. Two of those shareholders will be likely to wish to increase their stake, especially if they come together. Under the Government's previous proposals, however, they would have been unable to do so.
	In this House and the other place, it has been pointed out that ITV is the only broadcaster that is prevented from owning its own news provider. Indeed, it was Lord Bragg who said:
	"BBC News is at the heart of the BBC and Sky News is at the heart of Sky."
	He also said:
	"it should be repeated in Hansard as often as possible"
	that
	"ITV is the only broadcaster prevented from owning its own news provider."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 June 2003; Vol. 648, c. 1225.]
	I am happy to take up his invitation to repeat that statement once again. It is that issue that the amendments are now addressing.
	It is not only the effect on the nominated news provider in terms of the necessity of cutting the price in order to beat the competition that is an issue, but the most extraordinary list of requirements regarding information that ITN has to supply to the ITC at the time of renewal. There is a list of about 40 pieces of information that the nominated news provider is required to provide to the ITC, including matters such as 24-hour capability to retrieve and transmit news and foreign external broadcasters' material not substituting for original production. It goes right into the detail of the management of the company. It is wholly unnecessary that a commercial operation should have to account to a regulator to that extent, particularly in a competitive environment. If ITN is to provide a competitive third force, it badly needs to be relieved from its current requirement and to have access to the investment that it needs.
	ITN has suffered over the course of the past few years. There are many reasons for that. The uncertainty about when its nightly news bulletin is going to go out has not helped it to win an audience. Equally, the fact that the bulletin lost 10 minutes meant that it was not always able to provide as great a depth of coverage as its competitors. What ITN most needs now is long-term sustained investment. That is most likely to occur if the ownership cap is removed and if, in due course, the ITV company is able to take ITN in-house.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have belatedly come round to seeing the force of those arguments, and I strongly support the amendments from the House of Lords.

Nick Harvey: I, too, welcome the amendments and the change of stance on the part of the Government. It is absolutely right that we need at least three strong news providers and that that requires ITN to be in a position to battle on equal terms with BBC News and Sky News. In recent years, the existing restrictions have handicapped ITN from fulfilling that competitive role. There are two reasons for that. First, it has suffered from a lack of investment as a result of a dispersal of shareholders, with nobody having a strategic grip on the situation or an incentive to put some serious money into it. Secondly, it has periodically to go through the auction process, whereby others can either take its service away or bid its price down; that is exactly what has happened. Although we do not know who will own ITV in future, at least if a new owner from abroad takes control of the news service he will be subject to Ofcom regulation in the course of his daily business, whereas Ofcom has no such lean upon an investor from a completely different sector.
	I am pleased that the Government have shifted ground and decided to go ahead with the provision now instead of relying on a sunset clause.

Tessa Jowell: There is broad agreement that this is the right decision. I shall underline why that is. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) mentioned the important point—namely, that news has a special place in public service broadcasting and that it is crucially important that news services across all public service broadcasters are of high quality and adequately resourced. In that context, I stress the protection that clause 276 affords on both counts of investment and quality. There was a remarkable degree of consensus in another place. However, having had many discussions about the matter I would say that the original decisions were taken on balance rather than being conclusive in terms of retaining ownership limits.
	I pay tribute to the way in which ITN conducted the argument and to Lord Bragg and Lord Alli, both of whom contributed to the debate constructively and from their own experience. We have reached the right conclusion, and I commend the amendments to the House.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 72 and consequential amendments (a) to (e) agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 73 to 114 agreed to.

Clause 312
	 — 
	OFCOM's Standards Code

Lords amendment: No. 115.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 116 and the motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 115 and 116 and Lords amendments Nos. 117 and 118.

Tessa Jowell: With amendment No. 115, I will also speak to Government amendments (a) to (e), which are offered in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 115 and 116, and to Lords amendments Nos. 117 and 118. It may be helpful if I indicate that I propose that the House agree with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 117 and 118.
	Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 would have the effect of narrowing the scope of the code regulating broadcast advertising. At present, the ITC and Radio Authority codes can cover any matter governing standards in broadcast advertising. Those codes are developed after consultation and cover matters that are to be regulated under domestic or European law and other matters of public policy relating to broadcast advertising. The Lords amendments would limit the scope of the broadcast advertising codes to matters that may be misleading, harmful or offensive. We accept the "misleading, harmful or offensive" formulation introduced in the Lords amendment. However, some of the matters that are regulated by way of the current codes, and which will need to continue to be regulated, appear to fall outside the scope of that amendment. We have identified two specific areas where we believe that there must be a proper basis for the inclusion of these additional matters in the code. They are the continuation of the ban on political advertising, which has widespread support in the House, and the discharge of the United Kingdom's international obligations. The Government amendments would make those matters standards objectives in their own right, regulated by the code, and include them in the aspects of clause 314 that relate to advertisement and sponsorship.
	Lords amendment No. 116 would apply the standards objective for the protection of children to the provisions of clause 314 on advertisement and sponsorship. Our amendments in lieu would not overturn that, but that is an exception to our overall approach. The general framework of clause 314(1) is designed to pick out the provisions in the standards objectives that apply specifically to advertising.

Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State mentioned the codes for children and for political advertising. However, she has not mentioned the code that controls the way in which a crime is depicted in an advert. It is part of the codes of the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission that the perpetrator is always caught. One can see that in such advertisements. Do the amendments mean that the codes will be outside the scope of the Bill?

Tessa Jowell: Perhaps I can revert to the hon. Gentleman's point later. I shall continue to set out the case and logic for our amendments. As I said, the general framework in clause 314(1) will pick out aspects of the standards objectives that apply specifically to advertising rather than including the other standards in clause 312, which apply to other sorts of programmes as well as advertising.All the standards objectives in clause 312 apply to television, radio programmes and advertisements when they are relevant.
	Let us consider amendments Nos. 117 and 118. The simpler of the two, amendment No. 118, rectifies the omission of referendum broadcasts, to which equivalent provisions to those for party political broadcasts apply. I expect cries of delight from the Opposition Benches.
	Amendment No. 117 clarifies clause 314(7). It rectifies a weakness in the Bill's drafting, which has been discussed and came to light in proceedings on an appeal to the Appellate Committee. The interpretation of the provisions appeared likely to cause argument. The appeal was by the BBC against the Court of Appeal judgment that its refusal to broadcast the ProLife Alliance's party election broadcast in 2001 was unlawful. The Department was informed that an argument had been advanced that the draft Bill precluded the application of standards, especially those of taste and decency, to party political broadcasts. It was argued that a party political broadcast need not comply with the standards set by Ofcom under what is now clause 302 because clause 314(7) meant that transmission could not be prohibited on the grounds of standards. Such a change of policy was not the Government's intention and the Appellate Committee was informed of that. The amendments put the position beyond doubt: the standards objectives apply to all broadcast material.
	I confirm to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) that all the objectives in clause 312(2) apply to all programmes, including advertisements.

John Whittingdale: Once again, the steam has gone out of the issue and the Government have proposed an acceptable formula. As the Secretary of State knows, there was genuine concern that the word "unsuitable" was vague and capable of several different interpretations. That contrasted greatly with the existing wording in the codes of the ITC and the Radio Authority, of "misleading, harmful or offensive". It was not clear why the Government wanted to substitute "unsuitable" for the existing wording, and it caused the industry anxiety. However, after the vote in the House of Lords, the Government have tabled an amendment that is acceptable to the industry. We do not therefore wish to oppose the amendment.
	On the other two amendments that the Secretary of State has tabled, I was delighted to hear that the ban on political advertising will also take into account a ban on advertising in any future referendum campaign. She was careful not to say when such a ban might have to be used, but I trust that it will not be for some considerable time. On that basis, I have no further comments.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 116 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 115 and 116 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 117 to 129 agreed to.

Clause 340
	 — 
	Modification of Disqualification Provisions

Lords amendment: No, 130.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments (a) to (l) in lieu thereof.

Tessa Jowell: The Government are asking the House to overturn amendments made in another place to remove all restrictions on religious bodies holding broadcasting licences. We do not think that it is right to remove those restrictions in their entirety, but we have listened carefully and sympathetically to the many points raised in debates in this House and the other place. The amendments offered in lieu address many of the concerns raised by this issue.
	Earlier today, I spoke to the Bishop of Manchester and outlined to him the steps that the Government intended to take, and the argument on this issue that we intended to put to the House tonight. I had met the bishop some weeks ago in his capacity as leader of a delegation of Members of the House of Lords and others who were concerned about this issue. He felt that progress had been made as a result of those discussions.
	Before explaining why we think that the restrictions should be reintroduced, albeit in a modified form, I would like to emphasise that the Government are not in any sense anti-religious, or opposed to religious broadcasters or religious broadcasting. We recognise that faith communities play an integral part in the life of the UK and should be reflected in the broadcast media. We also firmly recognise that religious programming is an important element of public service broadcasting, and have amended the Bill to ensure that it can better be reflected in the Bill's definition of public service broadcasting.
	Our amendments require public service broadcasters to include programmes providing history, news and information about different religions and other beliefs, as well as showing acts of worship and other ceremonies. In terms of the BBC, the 1996 agreement between the corporation and the Government identifies religious programmes as a specific strand to be provided within the corporation's television and radio services in the UK. The BBC remains committed to religious broadcasting across its services. Its statements of programme policy for the current year include an undertaking to provide 112 hours of religious programming across BBC1 and BBC2, which I welcome.
	The Bill will remove all unnecessary restrictions on religious bodies holding licences. Religious bodies can already hold a wide range of licences offering significant broadcasting opportunities, including local analogue radio licences and licences for radio and TV cable and satellite services. The Bill will widen those opportunities still further, allowing religious bodies to hold licences to allow them to provide national and local digital radio services, digital terrestrial TV services and TV restricted services.
	Those changes brought in by the Bill have been widely welcomed. Listening to some of the commentators, however, one could get the impression that there was a complete ban on religious broadcasters holding any licences. That is not the case. The only remaining significant restrictions on religious bodies holding broadcasting licences will relate to Channel 3 and Channel 5, national analogue radio licences and multiplex licences.
	To put all that in context, under our proposals religious bodies will be unable to hold 20 licences for broadcasting programmes—the 16 ITV licences, the Channel 5 licence and the three national radio licences. They can, however, hold any of the almost 900 cable, satellite and digital broadcasting licences. As a matter of fact, religious bodies currently hold about 40 UK broadcasting licences of one sort or another.
	Our policy, reflected throughout the many debates on the Bill, is to have as few restrictions as necessary. We allow religious bodies to hold different kinds of broadcasting licences where that is consistent with satisfying as many viewers and listeners as possible and giving equal respect to everyone's beliefs. We wish to avoid a situation where, through scarcity of broadcasting spectrum allocated to a particular kind of licence, some religions achieve access to the airwaves but others do not. Where there is no broadcast spectrum scarcity—such as with cable and satellite—there are no restrictions, because there are sufficient opportunities for several religions to offer services, and for other non-religious services to co-exist with them, to offer a diversity of services. It follows that restrictions could be removed in the event that significant new broadcasting spectrum became available. That would not require primary legislation, but could be done by order.
	It also follows that in the event of any new classes of licence being introduced, we will carefully consider whether religious organisations should be able to hold them. There will not be a presumption that they cannot. The decision will turn, as now, on a question of broadcast spectrum scarcity. As I will explain later, we are proposing to amend the Bill to reinforce that point.
	I should like to concentrate on the case for the continuing restriction on national analogue radio licences. There are at present only three national analogue licences, and there is not enough spectrum to allow more services of that kind. Given that, we believe that it would not be appropriate for one of those licences to go to a religious organisation. That is because we do not think that a religious radio service, however popular it might be with many, would have sufficient appeal to justify its having one of only three national licences. To that is added our concern that it would be invidious, and perhaps unfair, for only one religion to have a national station while the others did not.
	The effect of the Bill will be to increase substantially the range of licences that religious organisations can hold. The restrictions that remain relate to areas of broadcasting where the opportunities to broadcast are limited due to scarcity of spectrum.
	It has been suggested that a decision on whether to award a licence to a religious body should be left to Ofcom's discretion. I do not agree. One of the aims of the present, limited disqualification is that scarce spectrum should be used to satisfy as many viewers and listeners as possible. Although I wish neither to denigrate the religious stations that exist nor to deny that they do a good job on their own terms and have a very loyal listenership, all the evidence is that such services do not have mass appeal.

Andrew Lansley: Is the Secretary of State not perpetuating the myth that the decision on whether the owner of a given licence, or a media asset associated with a licence, is a religious body or person automatically presupposes that the owner would wish to broadcast religious programmes to a greater extent and in a particular form? In other contexts, the Secretary of State and her colleagues have argued repeatedly that the licence conditions in the Bill prevent such a distortion of the purposes of a given channel. Why does it suddenly become possible in the case of a religious owner?

Tessa Jowell: That is an interesting question, but I think it must be a working assumption that a religious organisation seeking to acquire a broadcasting licence does so for a reason connected with the expression of a faith, although that might not occupy 24 hours of a day or, at any rate, all the broadcasting time available. Surely it is fair to assume that a religious organisation would wish to express its faith, and the character of that faith, through the broadcasting that it chose to schedule.

Andrew Lansley: My point does not relate to whether the Secretary of State's assumption is fair. We could debate that at length. My point is that she and her colleagues have argued that, notwithstanding the assumption, the protections in the Bill relating to licence conditions would be sufficient to prevent such an eventuality in any case. Why does she need to perpetuate discrimination in the structure of ownership to protect the format of a given licence, when those other protections can be applied?

Tessa Jowell: We apply the same logic—the same argument—to political organisations. In their case there is an outright ban, as opposed to the heavily qualified restriction that we propose in relation to religious organisations. Members should recognise the progress that has been made in opening access to religious organisations during the Bill's progress.

Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Tessa Jowell: I want to make some progress.
	The case for restriction is especially relevant in the case of national analogue radio licences. In their case, Ofcom's discretion is limited as such licences are normally awarded to the highest bidder unless exceptional circumstances apply.
	Given the evidence of the limited appeal of religious stations, we do not think it would be right to allow a well-financed religious organisation to buy one of only three national analogue licences and run it as a subsidised minority-interest service when the primary purpose of the broadcasting legislation is to ensure that services are calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests; but without a ban, that could happen. A well-funded religious organisation could outbid all other organisations, including other religious organisations, to broadcast religious material.
	The rationale for the bidding system for national licences is that it enables the market to deliver a popular and sustainable service. The highest bid is thus a proxy for wide appeal. But the system will not work if people act in a way that is not market-oriented. A well-funded religious body could run its national service on a non-commercial basis through subsidy and subscriptions.

Andrew Selous: I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber for the earlier part of the debate.
	I am interested in the Secretary of State's argument, as it is my understanding that no other professional broadcasters have actually been refused access to a licence for reasons of spectrum scarcity. I return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Can the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to why religious bodies are put into a separate category and treated as no other country treats them?

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is right. The argument for limiting access to religious organisations relates to spectrum scarcity. It follows from that—as indeed one would assume—that if no restriction were to exist, it is perfectly possible that a wide range of religious organisations would want to apply for licences. It then follows that it would not be fair, given the small number of licences to which we are referring, not to offer fair competition to the wide range of religious organisations that might want to bid for those licences. Certainly until analogue switch-off, the argument turns on that precise point about spectrum scarcity and applies specifically to the services that I identified.

Andrew Lansley: In the terms of the Secretary of State's argument, if, under the provisions of the Bill relating to spectrum trading, a religious body were to try to acquire enough spectrum to make it available for broadcast purposes—for example, for a further analogue sound broadcast licence—would the Secretary of State have any objection to a religious body offering a fourth such licence by using its own spectrum?

Tessa Jowell: Were those circumstances to arise, the decision would be for Ofcom, not for the Secretary of State.
	To continue my argument, the system that I was outlining would not necessarily produce a popular service; indeed, the need to rely on subsidies rather than on advertising suggests the opposite. It is hard to see what other sorts of body would adopt a similar approach. Conventionally, commercial bidders for such a licence will naturally aim to provide a popular service with wide appeal so as to ensure a financially viable business.
	The need to treat all religions fairly and to use scarce spectrum in a way designed to appeal to a wide range of tastes and interests, combined with the particular way in which national analogue radio licences are awarded, convinces us that retaining a ban on religious bodies holding such licences is essential.
	It is frequently alleged that our policy is not compatible with the European convention on human rights. We have taken legal advice, however, and are convinced that the remaining restrictions are fully compatible with our commitments under the European convention on human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights believes that the restrictions are likely to be compatible. The European Court of Human Rights has declared inadmissible the most recent challenges to our restrictions. It is important to make clear a point that was raised in the earlier stages of the Bill: we are aware of no current challenges in Strasbourg to the status of religious broadcasting under the European convention on human rights.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way a second time. I should like to return briefly to her argument about spectrum scarcity. I am puzzled as to why no other Government in the world are arguing in the way that she is about spectrum scarcity. France and the Netherlands have just released a raft of new analogue frequencies. On her point about licences being divisive and unfair to religious broadcasters, religious broadcasters tell me that they only want to be treated in the same way as any other organisation and to have exactly the same criteria for fit and proper persons applied to them. Surely that is not too much to ask.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman asks about spectrum availability. Regardless of the circumstances in relation to the disposal of spectrum in other countries, only enough broadcast spectrum is available in the United Kingdom for three national analogue licences. I reiterate something that I hope that I have already made clear to the House: if things were to change, we would review the situation.
	On the question, asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), about how a religious organisation might procure spectrum, perhaps a better answer than the one that I gave earlier is that such things could be considered if they were to arise and would be subject to the Secretary of State's order-making powers.
	I hope—I have no great certainty—that I have persuaded hon. Members on both sides of the House that the ongoing restrictions are made necessary by reason of spectrum scarcity. I should like to take this opportunity to comment on the words used in the communications White Paper. In explaining the reasons for placing restrictions on religious broadcasting, we referred to religious broadcasting's "particular capacity to offend". That was an unfortunate and unnecessary phrase, and I am quite sure that we would not use the same words if we were publishing the White Paper today.
	The Government amendments will reverse what might described as the default position in the case of religious bodies. At present, religious bodies are disqualified persons for all licences, but, at Ofcom's discretion, they can hold certain licences listed in the legislation. The Bill, as passed by the House in March, would have retained an approach by which, if a new category of licence had been introduced, religious bodies would have been disqualified automatically. The Government amendments make it clear that religious bodies will be disqualified only in relation to licences specified in the Bill. They are now ruled in until ruled out, rather than the other way around. The issue has caused concern in the religious community, and I believe that that modest change will be welcomed.
	We have already recognised in the communications White Paper that the restriction on religious bodies holding local digital sound programme service licences is an anomaly. We recognise that the restrictions that we propose to lift may be causing commercial difficulties for some religious broadcasters. Therefore, subject to the Bill being passed with the continuing modified restrictions, we also propose to implement those parts of the Bill that remove restrictions on religious broadcasters two months after Royal Assent.
	Subject to the will of Parliament, it is still our intention to implement all other ownership changes in December, so I hope that religious broadcasters will not have to wait any longer than necessary before they can take up new broadcasting opportunities. Government amendments (h) to (k) are also necessary to achieve that, as they allow the ITC and the Radio Authority to stand in Ofcom's shoes for those purposes until Ofcom acquires its substantive licensing functions at the end of this year.
	The Bill will usher in a new era for religious broadcasters, with greatly increased access to broadcasting licences. If the Bill is agreed, the restrictions on local and national digital radio programme licences should be lifted by the middle of September. Once that happens, new opportunities will open up. For example, local digital radio multiplexes are still being licensed, so religious broadcasters can seek to obtain some of those new slots. In the case of existing radio multiplexes, there should still be chances for religious bodies to get slots on those multiplexes that are currently unfilled or become vacant in the future. There are also opportunities, as I have already mentioned, to take up radio slots on Freeview.
	We are confident that Ofcom will take its duties with regard to religious broadcasting seriously and, mindful of its role in maintaining and strengthening public service television broadcasting, will not be content to see religious broadcasting relegated to inaccessible parts of the television schedule. Broadcasters who want to make a significant change to current levels of output, as set out in their statements of programme policy, are required to consult with Ofcom before they can do so.
	We remain convinced that, for the present, the case for some restrictions remains. But where restrictions can be removed, they have been removed. The Bill offers enormous possibilities for religious broadcasters that I hope they will seize.
	Finally, I have told the Bishop of Manchester that I would like to convene a forum for a discussion with religious broadcasters of how they see the future of religious broadcasting developing. That will provide an opportunity for those with an interest to have a continuing dialogue with the Government. We will arrange that later this year. I have dealt with this matter at some length and in some detail, because of the sensitivity of the issues and the concerns that have been expressed, and I commend the amendments to the House.

John Whittingdale: It is a matter for genuine disappointment that at the end of the nine-month consideration of the Bill and all the amendments on the Order Paper today we are left with this one, on which we still have no meeting of minds. We continue to believe that the disqualification of religious bodies from holding any form of broadcasting licence causes great offence to those communities and is unnecessary under present law.
	The Secretary of State is right to say that considerable progress has been made. Some 13 years ago, religious organisations were not able to hold any licences at all. Since then, exemptions have been granted for satellite radio and local analogue radio licences. The Bill represents further progress in allowing religious organisations to apply for more kinds of licence. Now, in the amendment that the Government have tabled tonight, they have changed what the Secretary of State described as the default position, so that instead of the Bill specifying what kinds of licences religious organisations can apply for, it will specifically identify the licences for which they cannot apply. To that extent, the Government's amendment is welcome, as is the relaxation that the Bill already contains. However, it still does not go far enough.
	The Secretary of State mentioned that she had had a conversation with the Bishop of Manchester in which she had set out the proposals that she was making tonight and he had said that he welcomed them as progress. We see them as progress, but I do not believe that the Bishop of Manchester no longer wishes to see the disqualifications removed from the statute book. I think that he also still believes that there are concerns about the human rights aspect, and he recognises that it will not go anything like far enough to satisfy a large number of people in the industry. To that extent, the Bishop of Manchester should perhaps have another opportunity to express his view in person when the amendment returns to the other place.
	As I said, progress has been made, but the Secretary of State fails to grasp the point, as the Government have repeatedly failed to do ever since this matter was first raised, that the concern is not how many licences or what kind of licences religious organisations should be allowed to apply for or be disqualified from applying for. It is the fact that religious organisations are singled out in statute as somehow inappropriate to apply for particular kinds of licences—that somehow they are so unacceptable that they need to be named in the Bill as not able even to apply for those licences. There is almost certainly no religious organisation that has any great interest in applying for any of the categories of licence that the Bill sets out. In promoting the amendment, we do not intend to say that ITV should be bought by a religious organisation or that a national radio analogue licence should be bought by a religious organisation. All that we, and the religious organisations, are saying, and have been saying ever since this matter first arose, was that they should at least be allowed to put in an application, and that that should be judged according to the usual procedure.
	In defending the Government's position, the Secretary of State referred, as the Government have done several times in the past, to the argument about spectrum scarcity. It is by no means accepted by a large number of people that there really is the spectrum scarcity that she claims that there is and that would justify the Government's position. A former Minister in her Department, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)—I am sorry that he is not here, but I do not think that he will mind me quoting him—said:
	"As Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, I was not satisfied with my officials' changing answers when I investigated the Christian broadcasters' disqualification. I believed in their democratic freedom to broadcast to the third of a million people who wrote and petitioned the Department, asking to be allowed to listen. The consumer need could easily have been met, if officials had allowed the Christian music broadcasters to use the additional national radio frequency from the Isle of Man."
	He finished:
	"It was never a technical matter when I was Minister, I don't believe it is a matter of spectrum now. I believed then, and I believe now, that religious broadcasters should bid for national and local licences on a level playing field with other applicants".
	As I said, I do not think that he will mind me quoting him, as he is also a co-signatory to the early-day motion that I tabled, which has been signed by 68 Members from all parts of the House, calling on the Government not to reverse this Lords amendment.
	Real problems have been caused already. Liberty AM women's radio, which is owned by religious people, was disqualified, because of that, from applying for a digital audio broadcasting licence. Unlike the other local radio licences, it was not given an opportunity to have an automatic roll-over of its analogue licence, which, I understand, cost the station some £4 million. In addition, Premier Christian radio, which is now the only remaining religious radio station in London, faces a new hurdle with the potential switch to digital radio mondiale. That matter has been raised with the Department in the past, and the Government have been asked whether Premier will be able to continue broadcasting on a DRM multiplex, with perhaps a variety of different stations, or whether it will be a casualty of this provision. The Government have still not replied on that, and we need to have the answer.
	The Government have also said, as the Secretary of State has repeated tonight, that they do not believe that there are problems in relation to the European convention on human rights. She said that the Government have taken legal advice, and that they are now advised that the provision is not incompatible with the convention. Whether or not that is the legal advice, will the Secretary of State read carefully a speech made by Lord Brennan in the other place? He is a distinguished lawyer and he set out clearly real concerns about whether the provisions are compatible with human rights legislation.
	Lord Brennan said:
	"The Bill seeks, among its objectives, to make provision for the regulation of . . . broadcasting. Such a statutory objective is of democratic import; therefore, if we find in its terms a provision that a significant proportion of society shall not be allowed even to apply for a radio/TV licence, nationally as well as locally, our democratic antennae should very carefully be switched on to find out why."
	I shall not read the whole of his speech, although I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the subject, but he continued:
	"The result . . . is that the argument that there is no available frequency is simply unacceptable. It begins to concern me democratically. The Human Rights Committee of the House has asked the Government for a reasoned explanation, so the Government must give an answer. I have not seen one . . . The first step in the argument is the democratic right; the second is why the Government are justified in restricting it . . . These proposals do not come before the Committee on behalf of religiously inclined citizens of this country, but from me as a democrat. I do not understand why those who would wish to tune into religious broadcasting in this country should find themselves in the same legislative slot as politicians or advertising agencies."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 2003; Vol. 648, c. 1497–98.]
	Despite the Government's assurance that the provision might not technically be incompatible with current human rights legislation, some of our finest human rights lawyers are raising real concerns that human rights would be damaged in this country and that there is no real justification for that to happen. We have argued that existing restrictions on the allocation of licences that are available to the authorities already provide sufficient protection. Even if that were not the case before, the Government today introduced a new provision in the form of the plurality or public interest test. I said that I was not a wild enthusiast of the public interest test but it specifically provides that if the Secretary of State decides that it would not be in the public interest to award or transfer a licence, she will be allowed to raise questions. A raft of safeguards now exists to prevent undesirable people from acquiring licences. That is why we continue to be unconvinced that there is any necessity for religious organisations to be singled out in such a way in the Bill.
	The matter is causing great concern in the House of Lords, where the Lords amendment was supported in all parts, and hon. Members of this House from all parties are also worried. Even now, I ask the Government to consider the matter again and accept Lords amendment No. 130 rather than insisting on the Government amendments.

Nick Harvey: I echo the disappointment of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that at the end of our long and tortuous process and after there have been sensible compromises and progress toward a consensus on so many issues, the Government have not met their opponents halfway on this matter. They continue to want to include a blatantly discriminatory measure in primary legislation to provide who can and cannot hold broadcasting licences on the basis of who those people are. No account is taken of what they would want to do with the licence or their programme format or content or market ploy. The Government simply want to use primary legislation to ban people on the basis of who they are. That is fundamentally wrong. Despite the Secretary of State's confident assurances about the human rights implications, I am convinced that that will catch up with them in the fullness of time and they will be found to be wrong. It is not possible to begin to justify the proposal in fundamental principle.
	As hon. Members said, the Government proposal is not necessary. We have equipped Ofcom with a raft of tools that it can use to regulate the media, any number of which would be applicable. It has close powers over the format of radio stations and their programming. If they get into a realm that is faintly political—I questioned witnesses on this when they came before the Pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee—they are subject to the same rules on impartiality and balance as others in the media. The addition of the plurality test gives Ofcom a serious way of dealing with spectrum scarcity.
	The Government have grappled with the absurd principle that the licences should be granted to the highest bidder. If they want to find a way out of the conundrum they should re-examine that idea. It is far fetched to maintain that British society, culture or democracy is under threat from people who want to play Christian music on the radio. I do not understand the Government's concern about that.

David Burnside: In the part of the UK that I come from, religion is, perhaps, slightly higher up the list of topics for discussion, both historically and at present, than it is in other parts of the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no support from any part of the political spectrum in my area for discrimination against the religious sector's ability to have total access to broadcasting under the right regulatory framework? Does that not say something to the rest of the UK?

Nick Harvey: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. If the idea does not raise hackles in his community in Northern Ireland, that gives the lie to the view that the matter is of great concern to all.
	It is a human rights issue. I am told that the religious freedom rapporteur of the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, has decided to investigate religious disqualification in UK broadcasting law. That does not surprise me. One would expect that because it is so very wrong in basic principle. As hon. Members said, no other country is resorting to such crude methods to control who broadcasts.
	We should remember that we are talking about religious persons as well as religious bodies. For example, the formula adopted by the Government will disqualify Olave Snelling, a broadcaster and former trustee with London Premier radio in the independent sector, from applying in consortium with others for national analogue TV or radio licence, yet she previously produced BBC national religious radio and TV programmes, for which she received licence fee-payers' money. We clearly thought that that was in the public good. If she wants to produce similar programmes for a similar audience, she will be banned from doing so and cast into darkness as an unfit person.
	The Government have to go further. Re-imposing the disqualification will drive yet more of our UK religious broadcast companies into the hands of European partners and some of those will start to use serious financial muscle to challenge the disqualification in the courts. I believe that the Government's case will eventually come apart. I do not know what consideration they have given to the impact of that or what it will cost.

Stephen Timms: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. Does he accept that the central concern of the effective and well supported campaign on the issue has been that religiously owned radio stations should have access to digital national licences, which the Bill allows? The central concern has not been analogue licences.

Nick Harvey: I hear the Minister's point. Among those who campaigned on the issues, different people will have had different concerns—depending on whether one talked to a bishop or to a more commercially mobilised operator. My concern is that it is fundamentally wrong to ban in primary legislation particular people or organisations from being allowed even to apply for a broadcast licence. We have regulators who are perfectly capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff and of deciding what constitutes a balanced programme for the public within a scarce spectrum. The Government are simply wrong and will have to go back to the drawing board.

Andrew Lansley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on this matter, but I should like to reinforce one or two points.
	The exchange with the Secretary of State on the availability of spectrum under spectrum trading adequately demonstrated that, although the Government contend that the argument is about scarce spectrum, it is not. They cannot offer an answer when tested on their proposition in the light of additional spectrum becoming available. They are proposing a ban that will apply regardless of the amount of additional spectrum that is made available, even though Ministers could then make an order to modify such change.
	When the Secretary of State compared the proposed ban with one on political organisations, she demonstrated that the argument is not about spectrum scarcity. The Government say not that they are stopping political organisations owning such licences because of the scarcity of spectrum, but that—they said this to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—political organisations should continue to be banned from holding licences because they are not satisfied that such organisations or those holding office in them would be able to operate with the necessary impartiality. Nobody is disputing that point; we are disputing that that proposition should not apply to religious bodies.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) got to the point of the matter. One can well understand how granting one political party access to licences would be seen as undermining other political organisations that are directly in competition with it. Indeed, the entire population would probably regard such a move as unhealthy for our democracy. I do not find people from religious bodies saying, "If church X has access to a licence, church Y will be unhappy about it." I do not find people contending that religious organisations and persons—we must keep remembering this—holding office in them are somehow in competition with one another for a limited amount of spectrum, the purpose of which is to proselytise and evangelise.
	The religious context is unlike politics and the other contexts in which we have imposed bans because there are people who live their lives in a religious context. It is not right for us to discriminate against those who participate in religious bodies as office holders and want also to be active broadcasters, perhaps owning licences. I do not want us either to discriminate against those who live their lives in a religious context and want broadcast organisations that reflect their lives and provide them with a service.

Paul Marsden: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that there is deep unease among many constituents and many Members on this issue? Is it not another example of the Government's control freakery and their need to be able control everything in sight?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is making his own point about the Government. He has his own experience of the Government, which no doubt justifies his remarks. I shall not make such a crude political remark at the end of a stimulating and consensual debate in almost every other respect. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about the degree of concern. For reasons that are becoming increasingly difficult to discern, the Government are persisting in a blatant piece of legislative discrimination. We have reached the point where we cannot find any realistic prospect of religious organisations coming forward to apply for licences, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said.

Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) was getting to the heart of the matter when he referred to the highest bidder? Is it a question of the Government choosing mammon rather than God?

Andrew Lansley: I hope that that would not be the case.
	I do not think that the Government were getting anywhere near the heart of the matter when it came to the issue of the highest bidder. When these licences are to be provided, there is a backstop power so that the licences cannot necessarily be exercised in ways that would be contrary to the intentions that lie behind the legislation.
	That is the curiosity. We do not have practical examples of what would contravene the Government's intentions. The Government talk about having to define licences that cannot be obtained, but at the same time leave in amendment (f), which is proposed in lieu of the Lords amendment, a mechanism that would require Ofcom to make determinations before people are able to apply for and exercise other licences. This strand of discrimination is still running right through the structure of the proposed legislation.
	It seems that within that structure, if the Government have realistic concerns about the nature of the way in which the licences would be held and used by religious bodies or persons associated with those bodies, Ofcom has the powers to deal with that situation. At the point of acquisition or of merger, if a large organisation is involved, the media merger rules and the media plurality test could bite. They could bite on anybody who was likely to prejudice the achievement of the standards objective that is set out in clause 312. If that objective was not contravened or if the licence was not of sufficient size to justify such a test, the fact of the licence itself and Ofcom's control over it mean that anyone who owns such a licence would not be able to use it in ways that would be prejudicial to the public interest. I find it difficult to understand why this discrimination is persisting. In these circumstances I would prefer that we accepted, with the Lords, that the discrimination should be done away with rather than sending anything back in lieu.

Andrew Selous: I shall support briefly the comments of every Member who has spoken so far in the debate.
	The restrictions that are still left in the Bill cause practical problems. One example is Premier Christian Radio, which wants to have a digital radio multiplex licence. Without that it will have difficulties in developing its service in future. If the Secretary of State genuinely believes that all the religious broadcasters are happy with the concessions offered in the Bill, why does she think that they have lobbied the House and the other place so hard, and right up until today? Why does she think that they are so concerned about the issue?
	I received about 50 letters from my constituents last week on the matter. Constituents telephoned me and e-mailed me, and it is clear that they are extremely concerned. I wonder what consultation the right hon. Lady has undertaken. The message that I pick up from my constituents is one of great concern. It has even been put to me that those religious broadcasters who will continue to suffer discrimination will, if necessary, move to France to rebroadcast to this country. That is because of the restrictions that are still set out in the Bill. That is a ridiculous situation and, like other hon. Members, I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter.

Evan Harris: I speak as an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. I came to our debate uncertain about what I would do if there was a vote, because there are concerns out there about giving more freedom to religious organisations to apply for licences. However, I have been persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that the right thing to do is oppose the Government in a Division, as it is not necessary to include such a provision in primary legislation, given that there are safeguards on content, which is what we should be talking about—it is about content, not ownership. I am happy to put that on the record because previously I have abstained on a vote on a ten-minute Bill on the subject and even voted against such a proposal.
	I should like to make another point about discrimination, which has been raised by all Members, but especially the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). It is reasonable that they should make such arguments on behalf of religious organisations, but may I gently stress to them that it works both ways? In public service broadcasting, where there is provision for religious broadcasting on the basis of both religion and belief, it should not be right that, as a quid pro quo for non-discrimination, people with atheistic, agnostic or purely secular beliefs should be excluded from participating in, for example, reserved slots such as "Thought for the Day", which is not described as religious broadcasting.
	I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to reflect on that. I cannot go into it in any more detail, as it is not the subject of the amendments. When discrimination is cited, one must consider whether religious organisations or the law around religion seeks to discriminate against those without religion.

Andrew Selous: My understanding is that "Thought for the Day" is in fact a religious slot, and that all faiths have the opportunity to use it. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are many other opportunities during the day for secular organisations to make their case?

Evan Harris: I do not want to go too far down that path, but humanism and atheism are a belief pattern. Indeed, an earlier Government amendment expands religion to include both religion and belief, thus including people who do not have a theistic faith but have atheistic beliefs. It is reasonable that there should not be exclusivity and discrimination in any of those areas. Indeed, that can be seen in programmes that fall outside the category of so-called religious slots. One cannot turn on the radio without hearing bishops and clerics arguing with one another about various important issues of the day. I do not want to overstress that point, but would like gently to urge hon. Members to consider the point that, in their effort to avoid being discriminated against, religious organisations should look carefully at themselves and the surrounding legislation to see whether they discriminate against people without religion.

Tessa Jowell: Hon. Members have made wide-ranging points with considerable passion, and I respect entirely the sincerity and strength of feeling that the debate has engendered.
	I should like to respond to some of the specific points that have been made, starting with the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about DRM, a digital system that is currently being developed for use on AM frequencies. There is a worry that DRM may be licensed as a multiplex, and consequently religious bodies would be prevented from holding such licences under the proposed restrictions. The first point to make is that no decisions have been taken about the way in which DRM will be licensed. It may be licensable under existing legislation, or it may require new legislation. Whatever happens, I can categorically assure the House that the restrictions on such licences will be looked at again.
	The second set of arguments refer to discrimination and the charge made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that no other country is arguing the position that our Government have adopted. It is important to remember that the position varies from country to country, depending on spectrum availability. Many countries are in a different position from ours, because of the widespread availability of cable networks there. The charge that the Government have not met their critics halfway is not true.
	I underline that by reminding the House that under our proposals, religious bodies would be excluded from holding 20 licences for broadcasting programmes—that is, 16 ITV licences, the Channel 5 licence and the three national radio licences. However, they could hold any one of almost 900 cable, satellite and digital broadcasting licences. Despite that availability, which has come about as a result of the change in rules, religious bodies still hold only about 40 UK broadcasting licences.
	Having listened carefully to the arguments, I find that they are rather overblown and disregard the concessions that have been made. They do not fully take account of the central point: we are speaking of disqualification from holding broadcasting licences on analogue. There are no restrictions—I repeat—there are no restrictions on religious groups holding broadcasting licences on digital. It is important that hon. Members who expressed their concerns take that point on board and understand it. The restriction arises because of the present scarcity of analogue spectrum capacity.
	The Government's proposal is not a discriminatory move. It is driven solely by spectrum scarcity. Content regulation, another means to which several hon. Members referred, has a role to play but it is not the whole story. We are dealing only with national analogue radio licences and television licences, as I identified, in areas where there is spectrum scarcity. There is no discrimination in respect of the 900 possible licences that religious bodies can hold, the 20 that they cannot bid for or the 40 that they already hold. It is important that those in all parts of the House who continue to voice concerns and whose constituents continue to make representations take that point on board.
	In the course of debate and discussion over the past nine months—almost a year—progress has been made, and more digital spectrum has become available. The restrictions have therefore been lifted on holding licences on digital spectrum. The restriction is specific and is not intended to discriminate in any way against religious groups. It is intended to protect for the widest possible appeal the limited availability of analogue spectrum.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) referred to the attitude of religious groups in Northern Ireland. Many of the groups responding to the Government's consultation supported a ban. Notwithstanding what hon. Members have said about the representations that they have received, many of the groups that responded supported a ban, including the Church of Ireland.
	We have had a long debate this afternoon and this evening. In the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have established in it a remarkable degree of consensus across a wide range of issues relating to media ownership and broadcasting, as well as broadband and spectrum management. Those issues have been controversial, but the process of debate and parliamentary scrutiny has achieved a remarkable degree of agreement.
	The matter before us remains the final sticking point. I say this to hon. Members on both sides of the House: listen to the argument, set aside the claims about discrimination on religious grounds and accept the evidence in fact that the restrictions that we intend to maintain in the Bill are required by the present scarcity of analogue spectrum. If that situation changes, as with the availability of digital spectrum, we will obviously review and reassess the case. As of now, however, the Government's view is that that spectrum should be safeguarded for licences that will attract widespread appeal. Nobody has claimed that religious broadcasting attracts anything like a majority audience, and licences should be retained for services that will command a widespread and majority appeal. We should maintain the current restriction on their availability to religious organisations for the reasons that have been put before us. The dialogue with religious organisations about religious broadcasting and such issues more generally, as the availability of spectrum changes in future, will continue.
	This has been a hotly contested issue. I believe that the Government's position is right. It is a considered position and it represents deregulation and the unpicking of rules that the previous Conservative Government put in place. I commend the proposals to the House.
	Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby. Here is the Whip now, so the Serjeant need not bother. We are all right.

The House having divided: Ayes 314, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that that Division took 17 minutes. I have no difficulty with that, but I hope that it sets a precedent. Although the Government delayed the House on this occasion, I hope that you will not hold it against the Opposition if, occasionally, our Divisions take 17 minutes due to the important discussions that we like to have with colleagues in the Lobby. I hope also that you can assure me of your even-handedness in these matters and that we have entered a new era of Divisions.

Mr. Speaker: About a fortnight ago, the right hon. Gentleman reminded me that I worked in a Rolls-Royce engineering factory. Time and motion used to work to stopwatches. I did not like it, so I do not work to a stopwatch.
	It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Government amendments (a) to (l) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 130 agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 131 to 278 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Immigration

That the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Official Secrets

That the draft Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.

Immigration

That the draft Asylum (Designated States) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 16 July, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews for Partners) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 16 July, pursuant to Orders [June 28 2001 and 29 October 2002].

Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 7 to 10.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

Insolvency

That the draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) (Administrative Receivership and Urban Regeneration etc.) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.

European community Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Draft Budget and Annual Policy Strategy

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum from HM Treasury dated 5th June relating to the Preliminary Draft General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2004, and European Union Document No. 7229/03, Commission Communication on the Annual Policy Strategy for 2004; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Identification of Ovine and Caprine Animals (Sheep And Goats)

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15829/02, draft Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3508/92; and supports the Government's view that this proposal does not take account of the way in which the United Kingdom sheep and goat industry operates, nor of the enhanced system of identification and traceability already in place in the UK, which is sufficient for animal health disease control purposes until an economical and affordable electronic identification system is available.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Motion made,
	That—
	(1) at the sittings on Wednesday 16th and Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and
	(2)
	at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Machinery of Government Changes: Amendments to Standing Orders

Motion made,
	That—
	(1) Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Scottish' and inserting 'Scotland';
	(2) Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Welsh' and inserting 'Wales';
	(3) Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended in the table in paragraph (6), as follows:
	(a) in line 5, by leaving out 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and inserting 'Transport; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister';
	(b) in line 12, by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Department for Constitutional Affairs (excluding those responsibilities of the Scotland and Wales Offices which fall to European Standing Committee A)';
	(4) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2), as follows:
	(a) before item 1 insert
	
		
			  
			 '1 Constitutional Affairs Department for Constitutional affairs (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland) 11'; 
		
	
	(b) leave out the item relating to the Lord Chancellor's Department inserted on 27th January;
	(c) in item 16, leave out 'Welsh Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))' and insert 'Wales Office (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales)'; and
	(5) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Constitutional Affairs'.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Business of the House

Motion made,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Home Affairs

Ordered,
	That Mr Chris Mullin, Bridget Prentice and Mr Tom Watson be discharged from the Committee and that Mr John Denham, Janet Anderson and Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Welsh Affairs

Motion made,
	That Mr Bill Wiggin be discharged from the Committee and that Mr Nigel Evans be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Information

Ordered,
	That Michael Fabricant be discharged from the Committee and that Mr Michael Jack be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Bamburac Family

Nick Brown: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the friends and supporters of the Bamburac family. It asks the House to ask the Home Secretary to allow the family to stay in Britain, and not to deport them to Croatia. Mr. Bamburac is of Serbian ancestry.
	The petition has attracted 1,411 signatures in just over a week. Most of the petitioners are my constituents—friends and neighbours of the Bamburac family. That is clear evidence that the family have settled into the life of our community in Newcastle. They have lived in Newcastle for the past five years; their daughter Sabrina is now 10, and has learnt English with an endearing Geordie accent, made friends, and settled into school. It is Sabrina who makes this case so special. She is an unusually gifted tennis player, with a talent acknowledged in public, nationally, by the Lawn Tennis Association. Her human rights, enabling her to develop that talent in the country that she has made her home, would be cruelly infringed if the family were deported.
	To lie upon the Table.

PRISON MEDICAL SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise issues about prison medical services, although I very much regret the circumstances that gave rise to this debate as I had hoped that the issues could be resolved in correspondence with the Home Office and the prison medical service. However, my constituent, Mr. John Tero, whose case I want to raise, is very seriously ill from the cancer that first developed and was untreated while he was in Woodhill prison. An ombudsman's inquiry takes time and, as my constituent says, time is not on his side. In fact, only this evening, he came out of hospital after another acute spell of illness.
	I have some general questions about the working of the prison medical service but, more important, I want two specific things for Mr. Tero. The first is the payment of the £45 compensation that he was promised, and the second is an apology for the way in which he has been treated. I emphasise that Mr. Tero is innocent. He was convicted at the end of 2000, but at his appeal in December 2001, the conviction was found to be unsafe and the charges against him were dismissed. By then, however, it was too late for him.
	Before Mr. Tero went into Woodhill, he developed a problem with his prostate gland and arrangements had been made for him to have an operation, which was duly carried out in May. He was discharged from hospital after three days and returned to Woodhill where he was put into an ordinary cell. He was then put into the medical wing for a couple of hours, but later—he estimates that it was about 11.30 at night—he was returned to the ordinary cell where he remained, despite suffering a severe haemorrhage some days later. He was given no help to clear that up, nor was he taken to the medical wing.
	I am astonished at the way that my constituent was treated. Is it standard practice for prisoners who are discharged from hospital after surgery to be returned to an ordinary cell? In the interests of the Prison Service, I would have thought that prisoners in such circumstances would be kept under some degree of medical observation and I consider that what happened to him was excessively cruel.
	It was after that, however, that Mr. Tero's problems really developed. He complained to the prison medical staff that he could not keep food down; he could not swallow and he could not eat. He was given indigestion tablets. He complained several times, but got nothing more than indigestion tablets.
	Mr. Tero started to lose weight. He showed me the belt that he had worn in prison and I could see the notches where he had had to tighten the belt to stop his trousers from falling down during the months when he became more ill and steadily lost more weight. In late October, he was transferred to Wymott prison although he said that he felt too ill to be moved. At that stage, he could eat only soup and biscuits. He said that the staff at Wymott treated him better. He continued to complain that he was unable to eat, and was eventually—I believe on 12 December—admitted to Preston hospital for a day for tests, which found he had a tumour on the gullet.
	In December when Mr. Tero's appeal came up in London, he was too ill to attend. He was released from prison shortly afterwards on 19 December.
	On 9 January 2002, he was admitted to Northampton general hospital and was found to be suffering from cancer. He underwent radiotherapy and, several months later, surgery. However, this year the cancer came back, and he is now very seriously ill.
	I have spoken to Mr. Tero's consultant who said that the particular cancer from which he suffered was a fast developing one, and early intervention was essential. He also said that the early warning of Mr. Tero's difficulty in swallowing should have alerted medical staff to the possibility of a serious problem.
	Mr. Tero first came to me for help last November; he had a strong sense of injustice, and simply wanted an apology. However, what has happened since then has made things worse for him, not better. Over the past few months, we have been in correspondence with the Home Office, the Prison Service, the prison health policy unit and the Prison Service ombudsman, but we have not got much further.
	First, there was a dispute about the clothes that Mr. Tero wore to hospital when he had his prostate operation. He said that they had been lost. The Home Office, in a letter from the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister, denied that. When Mr. Tero produced the copy of his lost property form, the Home Office conceded the point and agreed to pay him £45 compensation. Five months later, the compensation has still not been paid.
	More important, there have been different stories about Mr. Tero's care and they raise more questions than they answer. Mr. Tero says that he complained of being sick, of not being able to eat, of not being able to swallow, and of losing weight. Indeed, he weighed only 66 kg when he arrived back in Northampton. The Prison Service said, through a letter from my hon. Friend's predecessor, that Mr. Tero's weight was stable. A second letter from the Prison Service stated that he had actually put on weight and weighed 77.8 kg on 4 October. How exactly did his weight go down from 77.8 kg on 4 October to 66 kg on 9 January?
	It is claimed that Mr. Tero's only complaint was one of gastric reflux, despite the fact he made seven visits, as recorded by the Prison Service, to the doctor at Woodhill between 5 June and 4 October. There is no recognition by the prison medical service that he was unable to eat. Mr. Tero told me he had pretty much stopped eating completely by about August or September and that he ate only soup and biscuits when he was transferred. He also said that a prison officer at Wymott tried to get him special food that he could eat.
	The Prison Service says that health care staff at Wymott were unaware that Mr. Tero no longer wished to attend his appeal, whereas my constituent said that he spoke to prison staff, that he had collapsed at least once by that stage and that the prison officer that he consulted agreed that he could not travel and sorted out some of the appeal arrangements for him.
	In trying to pursue this matter, there has also been some dispute about whether the Prison Service ombudsman can deal with it, or whether it is down to the prison health care policy unit. In the middle of all that, there is a desperately ill man who has a complaint—in my view, wholly justified—about the way in which he was treated. I have to say that, apart from my concerns about his treatment, the difficulty that I have had in getting a resolution also raises real concerns about the way that the prison medical services work. I therefore want to ask a number of questions not just about my constituent, but about the general policy.
	First, on the general policy, about which I have asked questions previously, what are the procedures for prisoners who have been discharged from hospital? Should they be kept in a prison medical facility, or just put in an ordinary cell? What are the procedures for examining prisoners and recording their complaints? In particular, if they complain of eating difficulties, are they weighed or is their eating monitored in any way? Given that prisoners sometimes go on hunger strike, I should have thought that procedures would be in place to deal with those issues.
	How long does a prisoner's consultation last with a prison doctor? What notes are kept of those consultations? What access do prisoners have to their medical files? What liaison takes place between the prison's medical staff and the rest of the prison staff? It appears, from what Mr. Tero said, that some of the prison staff were aware of his condition and tried to help him, but that did not seem to have been relayed back to the medical staff. For example, I understand that Mr. Tero collapsed on at least one occasion and that he was unable to get up on at least one occasion. On several occasions, other inmates did some of his tasks for him; he was simply unable to do them because of his poor state.
	Would not it be normal in any institution for such events to have been noted and passed to the medical staff to deal with? Why are there no clear lines of accountability, so that the prison medical services can be properly held to account, instead of inquiries being batted between the prison ombudsman and the health care policy unit, as well as the Home Office and the Prison Service?
	Secondly and most importantly, on behalf of my constituent, I want an apology. What has shocked me most in all this is that my constituent has had no apology and no recognition of the hardship that he has experienced. Having dealt with him for a number of months, I know that his hardship has been immense. I have watched while his health has declined and he has been completely unsupported and not helped by the Prison Service. By any account, he had a horrendous time and regained his liberty only to lose his health. Of course, it will always be debatable whether proper and timely intervention could have made a difference to the ultimate medical outcome, but he could at least have been spared the indignity and suffering that he has had to endure.
	Public services must ensure that they respect people's humanity and, whether they are prison services or whatever, ensure that they treat people with the dignity that is their due. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could look at the bare facts of the case and fail to realise that they were dealing with a vulnerable, very sick, elderly and innocent man and that steps had to be taken to make amends.
	What my constituent most wants is an apology, which will make a big difference to him in the time that he has left and end his burning sense of injustice about the way he was treated. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that the £45 compensation that is outstanding—it is not very much—is paid very promptly, acknowledge that Mr. Tero was not properly treated and offer the apology that my constituent deserves.

Paul Goggins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on her success in obtaining this debate. She set out eloquently and powerfully the complaints made by her constituent, Mr. John Tero, about his medical treatment while he was in prison in 2001. He believes that the Prison Service failed to give him proper access to adequate health care and treatment, despite his making repeated complaints about the symptoms, including substantial weight loss, of what turned out to be a serious medical condition. We are, of course, all deeply concerned to hear about his current state of health.
	In my reply, I intend to refer to the wider context of health care in prisons, and the general improvements that are taking place under the partnership established in April 2000 between the national health service and the Prison Service. However, I shall begin by responding to the specific points that my hon. Friend made on her constituent's behalf. I know that she will understand if I do not go into the same detail as was possible in the exchange of private correspondence that she has already had with my predecessor and the director general of the Prison Service. Medical confidentiality limits the amount I can divulge in public. I will try to deal with as many of the points that my hon. Friend made as possible, but I will in any event write to her to give a full answer to every question that she has asked me this evening.
	Mr. Tero was first received into Woodhill prison on 15 December 2000. He told staff that he had recently seen his GP about a medical problem and he subsequently underwent successful surgery for that problem in May 2001. On his return from surgery on 4 June, he had a full medical examination. He did not at that time report any significant symptoms. He did, however, report symptoms of a different condition on 16 July 2001 when he was seen by a prison doctor. The doctor prescribed medication.
	My hon. Friend asked whether it is standard practice for a prisoner to be returned to his cell after surgery. That is a clinical decision in each case. Normally, prisoners are returned to the health care centre on their immediate return from hospital. Health care centres have cells, of course, and I do not know whether it was one of the cells in the medical centre to which Mr. Tero was returned. That is one of the points that I will clarify in the letter I send to my hon. Friend.
	Later in July he was seen again. Similar symptoms had persisted and further medication was prescribed. He was seen again in August and September, and at a further appointment with a doctor on 4 October his weight was recorded. It had remained stable since the beginning of June. On 9 October 2001, Mr. Tero was transferred to Wymott prison. On reception his continuing health problem was again identified and recorded. On 15 October, he consulted a doctor at Wymott with further symptoms. In view of that development, he was referred to a local NHS hospital for specialist investigation. The first appointment made for him was for 20 November but unfortunately it was cancelled at short notice. A new one was arranged for 12 December.
	The investigation revealed a significant condition that merited further attention. The hospital made an appointment for 19 December. As my hon. Friend said, by coincidence that was the same day as Mr. Tero won his appeal and was released from Wymott. Prison staff advised him of the importance of keeping the hospital appointment but he preferred—perhaps understandably—to return home to Northampton and consult his own GP. Staff at Wymott informed the hospital about what had happened and subsequently forwarded details from the hospital to the GP.
	My hon. Friend and her constituent are clearly dissatisfied with the responses that they have received to date from the Home Office and the Prison Service. I know that, in addition to bringing this matter to the attention of the House in this debate, my hon. Friend has referred the matter to the prisons and probation ombudsman. Although the clinical aspects of the complaint fall outside his jurisdiction, he has—I understand—agreed to examine the alleged administrative failings in the case. In addition to any other material that has been provided to the ombudsman, I shall ensure that he receives a full copy of the Official Report for this debate, so that all the information that my hon. Friend has provided tonight may be fully considered.

Sally Keeble: I wrote to the ombudsman for the second time on 27 May, and I have not had a reply yet. Is my hon. Friend saying that he has now agreed to take on the case, as he had not done so previously?

Paul Goggins: It is my understanding that the ombudsman has accepted the case, but I undertake to confirm that and to ensure that there is proper communication from the ombudsman to my hon. Friend, as that is the least that should happen in terms of indicating to her whether the case is to be considered. I assure her that I will look closely at the ombudsman's findings and take any remedial action that may be called for in the light of his conclusions.
	My hon. Friend raised two specific questions. One was in relation to the payment of compensation, which she says is owing. I have in front of me a copy of a letter that she received from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) dated 11 February 2003, which refers specifically to an agreement that Mr. Tero would be offered £45 in compensation. I cannot understand why that payment has not been made in the months since, and I intend to follow it up as a matter of urgency, to make sure that all the problems are ironed out and that the payment is properly made.

Sally Keeble: As of today, that money had not been paid to my constituent, and he is very ill.

Paul Goggins: I assure my hon. Friend that I will follow the matter up first thing in the morning and ensure that any payment that is outstanding is made. I understand the circumstances in which that would happen.
	My hon. Friend's second question was whether I would offer an apology to her constituent. Given my undertaking that I will follow up the inquiry with the ombudsman, I need to look at his findings before I make any firm commitment in that area. I also confirm tonight that I have decided to ask the director of prison health to arrange for an independent clinical review of this case and to report the outcome directly to me. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore be reassured to some extent that I want to deal with this case in as open and honest a manner as possible.

Sally Keeble: I understand that there are always cautions about making an apology, but does my hon. Friend accept that this matter is now six months on? If an ombudsman's inquiry would have sufficed, I would have left it at that. It seems, however, that at the very least my constituent has been given some very shoddy treatment, and it is fair that he should receive recognition of the fact that he has been badly treated—frankly, I would not treat a dog like that. That should be recognised and he should be given some form of apology for the suffering and hardship that he has experienced, which has been needless.

Paul Goggins: Rightly, my hon. Friend argues forcefully and powerfully again on behalf of her constituent. There is at least a possibility in relation to some of the assertions that have been made that that information would not be shared by the Prison Service or the medical staff within it. It is my responsibility as a Minister to weigh all the facts and to make a proper judgment in the light of all that as to whether an apology is owed. I will be the first to offer that apology if I judge that it is merited. I promise my hon. Friend that I will follow this issue through as swiftly as I can.
	As I said at the outset, this debate takes place within the context of a major reform in the delivery of health services for prisoners that began in 2000 and has already led to significant improvements as services become mainstreamed within the national health service. With the exception of acute care, prison health services used to operate more or less independently of the NHS. This led to deep concern about growing isolation and the emergence of significant differences in the standards of health care afforded to prisoners compared with those enjoyed by the general public. In response to those concerns, the Government established a formal partnership between the Prison Service and the NHS in April 2000. Two new joint Home Office and Department of Health units—a prison health policy unit and a prison health care taskforce—were appointed to lead and manage a programme that was designed to modernise prison health services, increase NHS engagement with the prison population and introduce much improved performance monitoring arrangements. The organisational changes were accompanied by new investment to tackle substance misuse, mental health problems and communicable diseases.
	The Prison Service has committed more than £60 million to improve health care centres and services in the three years since the new approach was adopted. All prisons now have health needs assessment and improvement plans. They provide an important focus for prisons and their local health partners when planning and managing change and improving services. Increasingly, the plans are being incorporated in the local health economy, thus giving a clear signal that in future there will be full integration with local NHS planning.
	A prison health work force strategy has been developed to broaden the base from which prison health workers are drawn, improve access to training and promote professional development, which was recommended by the report of the working group on doctors working in prisons and an earlier report on prison nursing. The appointment of a head of health care training at the Prison Service training college has also enabled robust and targeted training for health care workers to be developed.
	Occupational standards have been introduced that reflect good NHS practice and provide the basis for an NVQ in custodial health care. Work is under way to ensure that prison-based health care staff have access to the same training opportunities as their NHS colleagues and that work force development confederations include prison staff in their planning and development activities.
	Many of the worst examples of unsuitable and inflexible health facilities are being replaced or improved as part of a four-year capital investment programme that is worth more than £70 million. New purpose-designed health care centres are being built at Birmingham, Pentonville, Chelmsford, Hull and Feltham, where the quality of the existing health care facilities had frustrated modernisation and the introduction of much needed improvements to the quality of care for prisoners. Eight further substantial improvement schemes are planned for Liverpool, Norwich, Cardiff, Durham, Holloway, Parkhurst, Brixton and Dartmoor prisons. Improving arrangements for information sharing between the Prison Service and the NHS will help to improve the continuity of care for people as they pass between the community and prison.
	Our plan for improving primary care in prisons is designed to increase integration with primary care planning through local primary care trusts. The publication of "Developing and Modernising Primary Care in Prisons" in June 2002 provided a framework for the development of primary care in prisons and practical advice on how change could be achieved.
	The extent of mental ill health in the prison population is a particular cause of concern. In December 2001, we published a strategy for modernising mental health services in prisons that outlined how the provision of prison mental health care is expected to develop during the next three to five years. The plan included the development of day care provision and—building on the commitments in the NHS plan—of mental health in-reach services for prisoners with severe and enduring mental illness.
	The plan stated that, by 2004, the 5,000 or so prisoners who will have a severe mental illness at any one time should receive more comprehensive mental health services in prison. All prisoners with severe mental illness will receive treatment and no prisoner with a serious mental illness will leave prison without a proper care plan or a care co-ordinator. In the new partnership between the NHS and prisons, some 300 additional staff will be employed to help to achieve this objective.
	Research indicates that current reception screening processes fail to identify up to three quarters of those prisoners who have a severe mental illness. To rectify that, new triage-based reception screening arrangements were developed and piloted at 10 local prisons during 2001–02. They focused on identifying and managing prisoners' immediate and significant health needs on their first reception into prison. The work is closely linked to the development of the Prison Service's suicide prevention strategy. I am pleased to say that the evaluation of the pilot sites shows a substantial improvement to the identification of prisoners with a severe mental illness. The introduction of the system to all local prisons is being phased in over a 12-month period from April 2003.
	Prisoners often have to wait too long to obtain both emergency and routine dental care. Fewer than 20 per cent. of prisons are currently meeting NHS waiting times for access to routine and emergency dental services. The recently published "Strategy for Modernising Dental Services for Prisoners in England" sets out how we intend to develop and modernise the provision of dental services within prisons. A three-year investment plan has been put in place to support its implementation, which will enable regional prison health development teams to ensure the implementation of dental service action plans for those prisons currently not meeting access targets.
	A new standard for clinical services for substance misusers was issued in December 2000. It is consistent with current Department of Health guidelines and forms the basis for ensuring that substance misuse services are available in all local prisons and remand centres to a level of quality that is at least comparable to those in the general community.
	Every prison is now expected to have in place a range of measures aimed at reducing the risk to prisoners, their families and the wider community of the transmission of blood-borne viruses. For example, all prisoners should be offered immunisation against hepatitis B on reception in order to increase protection for individuals, reduce the risk of outbreaks of infection in prisons and increase protection for the wider community following a prisoner's release. All NHS organisations now have in place a system of clinical governance. Clinical governance must also become the framework within which health care in prisons is delivered.
	On 1 April 2003, financial responsibility for prison health was transferred from the Home Office to the Department of Health in England and the Welsh Assembly. Funding transfers of £117.7 million for England and £2.2 million for Wales took place on that date. That was a logical development of the partnership between the Prison Service and the NHS and will ensure that prisoners can access the same range and quality of health services as the general public.
	A development network of prisons and primary care trusts has been established to provide a test-bed for that transfer at operational level and is likely to lead to some PCTs assuming effective commissioning responsibility for prison health services in their localities from April 2004. By April 2006, responsibility for commissioning prison health services in England will be fully devolved to NHS PCTs, thus effectively mainstreaming that activity within the NHS.
	The Government have made new money available to support that development. The Department of Health will be making available significant additional resources for prison health in England worth an extra £46 million a year by 2005–06. That is more than a third more than the Prison Service spent last year on health services. It will be targeted on areas of real need, including mental health, drugs and infectious diseases. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the programme of modernisation and reform of prison health care is very much on track.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.